UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

AT   LOS  ANGELES 


IN   ME  MORI  AM 
BERNARD   MOSES 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/democracyversusaOOgeis 


DEMOCRACY  versus  AUTOCRACY 

A  COMPARATIVE  STUDY  OF 

GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE 

WORLD  WAR 


BY 

KARL  FREDERICK  GEISER,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF   POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
IN   OBERLIN   COLLEGE 


D.  C.  HEATH  &  CO.,  PUBLISHERS 

BOSTON  NEW   YORK  CHICAGO 


Copyright,  1918 
By  D.  C.   Heath  &  Co. 


1  K 


*  ■    •  <  - 


CO 

00 


N 


,' 


JF 

ID  "7 

a7i 


Eternal  Spirit  of  the  chainless  Mind! 
Brightest  in  dungeons,  Liberty!   thou  art, 
For  there  thy  habitation  is  the  heart  — 
The  heart  which  love  of  thee  alone  can  bind; 
And  when  thy  sons  to  fetters  are  consign 'd  — 
Vj  To  fetters,  and  the  damp  vault's  dayless  gloom, 

Their  country  conquers  with  their  martyrdom, 
And  Freedom's  fame  finds  wings  on  every  wind. 

—  Byron,  Sonnet  on  Chillon 


in 


vy 


PREFACE 

This  little  book  has  been  prepared  primarily  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  government  requirements  in  the  War 
Aims  Courses  now  given  in  American  colleges  and  uni- 
versities. It  has  also  been  written  with  a  view  to  stimu- 
lating in  the  general  reader  a  greater  interest,  a  clearer 
understanding,  and  a  greater  love  and  enthusiasm  for  the 
democratic  ideals  of  government.  The  World  War  has 
familiarized  us  with  such  terms  as  "democracy,"  "autoc- 
racy," "parliamentary  systems,"  "responsible  govern- 
ment," "self-determination,"  the  "small  state,"  and 
many  other  similar  expressions.  My  own  experience  and 
observation  in  teaching  government  for  nearly  a  score  of 
years  convinces  me,  however,  that  such  terms  convey 
very  little  meaning  to  the  average  individual,  including 
the  college  graduate.  The  great  need  of  the  hour  in  the 
"campaign  of  education"  that  is  now  going  on  is  a  more 
careful  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  problems  we 
propose  to  solve.  I  have  therefore  attempted  to  make 
these  chapters  in  a  very  real  sense  a  study  of  political 
ideals,  terms,  and  types  of  institutions  rather  than  a 
mere  collection  of  miscellaneous  and  interesting  facts 
proportioned  among  the  states  according  to  their  general 
importance.  I  have  assumed  a  knowledge  of  our  own 
government  and  have  taken  England,  France,  and  Italy 


vi  PREFACE 

as  representatives  of  the  parliamentary  and  responsible 
systems;  Germany  as  representing  autocracy  in  its  most 
efficient,  and  therefore  most  dangerous,  form;  Austria- 
Hungary  as  the  great  political  complex  out  of  which  have 
come  many  of  the  problems  —  and  indeed  the  very  causes 
—  of  the  World  War,  and  the  discussion  of  which  will 
surely  occupy  much  time  at  the  coming  peace  conference. 
Belgium  stands  as  an  example  of  the  ideal  small  state 
for  which  the  democracies  are  fighting,  while  Brazil  is 
selected  as  typical  of  the  most  progressive  of  the  South 
American  republics. 

The  bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  volume  has  been 
added  with  a  view  to  furnishing  a  minimum  number  of 
references  to  works  accessible  in  most  libraries  or  procur- 
able at  a  small  investment. 

I  am  indebted  to  Dean  Guy  Stanton  Ford  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Information,  Washington,  D.  C,  for  sug- 
gestions concerning  the  plan  out  of  which  this  book  has 
grown  and  especially  to  the  scholarly  advice  and  help  of 
Dr.  Kenneth  W.  Colegrove  of  Syracuse  University  both 
while  the  manuscript  was  being  prepared  and  the  proof- 
sheets  corrected. 

KARL  FREDERICK  GEISER 

Cambridge,  Massachusetts, 

November  6,  1918 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.   Introduction 1 

Determining  Principles 3 

II.   Comparative  Government 7 

Presidential  System      7 

The  American  Government 7 

Parliamentary  Governments 8 

The  English  Government 8 

The  Government  of  France 15 

The  Government  of  Italy 20 

III.  The  Government  of  Germany 26 

IV.  Austria-Hungary 36 

The  History  of  Austria 37 

Titles  of  Austrian  Rulers 40 

The  History  of  Hungary 41 

The  Compromise  of  1867 45 

V.  Austria-Hungary:  Government  of  To-day  47 

The  Common  Government 47 

The  Government  of  Austria 50 

Provincial  and  Local  Government     ...  55 

vii 


viii  CONTEXTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

The  Government  of  Hungary 56 

Provincial  and  Local  Government.    ...  58 
The  Problem  of  Races  in  the  Dual  Monarchy       59 

The  Czecho-Slovaks 62 

VI.  The  Government  of  Belgium 65 

The  History  of  Belgium,  1579-1914  ....  65 

Government 68 

Justice 72 

Local  Government 73 

Area,  Population  and  Language     ....  73 

VII.   The  Government  of  Brazil 75 

The  History  of  Brazil,  1500-1891  ....  75 

The  Constitution 78 

The  State  Government 79 

The  General  Government 81 

Population  and  Resources 84 

Bibliography 87 

Index 91 


DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 


DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

When  President  Wilson  gave  expression  to  the 
now  famous  phrase,  "We  are  fighting  to  make  the 
world  safe  for  democracy,"  he  uttered  a  profound 
truth.  He  saw  in  the  conflict  in  which  America  is 
engaged  in  association  with  the  Allies,  a  struggle 
between  two  political  ideals;  these  two  ideals,  when 
expressed  in  form  and  practice  of  government,  are 
in  their  nature  either  monarchic  or  democratic. 
The  one  ideal  is  accepted  by  Germany;  the  other 
by  the  United  States;  the  one  means  a  government 
imposed  from  above;  the  other  a  "government  by 
the  consent  of  the  governed";  the  one  means  an 
irresponsible  autocracy;  the  other  a  government 
responsible  to  the  people  —  a  democracy. 

But  what,  it  may  be  asked,  is  a  democracy?  Are 
not  all  modern  governments,  of  whatever  form,  ruled 
by  public  opinion?  Could  any  ruler  in  an  enlight- 
ened state  carry  on  a  government  without  the  con- 
sent, active  or  passive,  of  the  people  forming  the 

l 


2  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

state?  These  are  searching  questions,  and  the 
implications  raised  by  them  should  by  no  means  be 
dismissed  in  a  perfunctory  manner,  for  they  suggest 
ideas  lying  at  the  foundation  of  the  World  War. 
No  attempt  will  here  be  made  to  discuss  all  of  the 
issues  raised  by  these  questions.  That  is  not  the 
purpose  of  this  outline,  and  we  merely  call  attention 
to  them  in  order  to  define,  at  the  outset,  the  scope 
and  purpose  of  this  study.  It  may  be  true  that  all 
modern  states  are,  in  a  general  sense,  governed  by 
public  opinion,  if  by  that  phrase  we  mean  a  passive 
popular  approval  of  the  existing  political  order  of 
society.  And  if  the  issues  of  the  war  were  merely 
to  determine  whether  political  power  should  hence- 
forth emanate  from  above  or  below  —  from  governor 
or  governed  —  the  significance  of  the  final  outcome 
would  not  be  of  transcendent  importance;  that  is 
to  say,  the  direction  in  which  power  flows  is  not  in 
itself  the  significant  fact  concerning  issues  between 
states.  The  significant  fact  about  the  source  of 
power  is  this:  When  political  power  comes  Ttoi 
above,  it  comes  from  a  single  source;  there  is  nc 
way  of  restraining  it;  it  is  liable  to  abuse;  and  it\ 
always  implies  a  government  imposed  upon  the' 
governed  from  without.  Such  a  government  may-1 
be  directed  by  wise  counsel;  it  may  be  efficient; 
and  may,  in  a  material  way,  doTnueb-fot-the-people; 
but  it  is  not  democratic.  On  the  other  hantrr'a 
government   in    which   power   emanates   from    the 


INTRODUCTION  3 

people  and  is  imposed  upon  themselves  by  their 
own- free  choice  carries  with  it  its  own  restrictions 
and  is  not  liable  to  abuse.  Such  a  government 
may  make  mistakes  —  all  governments  do  that. 
It  may  have  faults,  but  in  that  case 

"  The  fault,  dear  Brutus,  is  not  in  our  stars, 
But  in  ourselves,  that  we  are  underlings," 

and  this  is  an  important  fact  to  keep  in  mind. 

There  is  one  more  question,  then,  that  should  be 
asked  and  answered:  Is  a  democracy  the  best  kind 
of  government?  Yes.  After  long  experience,  after 
all  the  observations  made  concerning  government 
since  man  has  kept  a  record  of  events,  it  is  clear, 
beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  people  themselves  know 
best  what  they  want;  and  they  should  choose, 
therefore,  their  own  form  of  government  and  impose, 
in  whatever  form  and  manner  they  please,  their 
own  laws.  —  That  is  what  we  mean  by  a  democracy. 

Determining  Principles 

Adopting,  therefore,  President  Wilson's  phrase 
quoted  above  as  one  of  our  chief  war  aims,  and 
accepting  as  a  definition  of  democracy  the  foregoing 
paragraph,  it  is  pertinent  to  ask  to  what  extent  the 
chief  European  governments  associated  with  us  in 
this  war  are  also  democratic  in  form,  practice,  and 
spirit.  That  is  the  question  we  shall  attempt  to 
answer.     But   before   doing   so   it   will   be   well   to 


4  DEMOCRACY  t».  AUTOCRACY 

summarize  certain  fundamental  principles  concern- 
ing government  in  general : 

1.  The  character  of  any  government,  i.e.  whether 
it  is  democratic  or  undemocratic,  is  determined  by 
two  facts:  first,  its  form,  and  second,  the  extent  to 
which  it  is  subject  to  popular  control. 

2.  The  functions  of  government  are  twofold  — 
the  formulation  of  policy,  determined  by  the  legisla- 
tive branch,  and  the  execution  of  the  public  will  by 
the  executive  or  administrative  branch,  for  the 
judiciary  is  in  the  last  analysis  merely  a  branch  of  the 
law-enforcing  power.  These  two  functions  may  be 
united  in  one  authority,  as  in  the  earlier  despotisms 
of  the  East,  or  in  two  separate  and  independent 
departments,  as  in  the  United  States;  or  they  may 
be  exercised  jointly  by  the  legislative  and  executive 
branch,  as  in  England,  France,  and  Italy.  The 
executive  may  be  called  a  king,  president,  cabinet, 
or  council  —  the  name  is  unimportant.  The  policy- 
determining  branch  may  be  called  a  congress,  an 
assembly,  a  legislature,  or  a  parliament  —  these  are 
mere  names  for  the  same  idea.  The  chief  fact  to  be 
kept  in  mind  is  that  there  are  two  distinct  functions 
of  government  —  law-making  and  law-enforcing  — 
and  the  manner  of  interaction  of  these  two  depart- 
ments and  their  relation  to  the  people  determine 
whether  or  not  a  government  is  really  a  democracy. 

3.  Since  all  governments  are  ordered  and  regu- 
lated by  law,  whatever  the  source  or  nature  of  that 


DETERMINING   PRINCIPLES  5 

law  may  be,  the  authority  and  control  of  the  law- 
making branch  will  primarily  determine  the  character 
of  the  government;  that  is  to  say,  if  the  legislative 
body  is  elected  by,  and  continually  dependent  upon, 
the  people,  we  have  one  of  the  chief  essentials  of  a 
democracy. 

4.  From  the  very  nature  of  society,  every  self- 
governing  community  forming  a  sovereign  state, 
extending  over  a  wide  area,  and  including  a  large 
population,  must  be  politically  organized  into  a 
national,  general,  or  central  government  and  into 
local  governments.  The  central  government  always 
controls  the  foreign  policy;  it  declares  war,  makes 
treaties,  regulates  commerce,  and  forms  all  alliances 
with  other  states.  In  the  consideration  of  our  ques- 
tion this  fact  must  constantly  be  kept  in  mind,  for 
in  the  war  we  have  been  waging  against  the  central 
powers  all  considerations  of  the  merits  and  demerits 
of  local  government  —  state  or  municipal  —  are 
irrelevant.  We  have  not  been  waging  war  against 
the  cities  of  Germany;  we  have  had  no  concern  with 
the  government  of  Hamburg,  Leipzig,  Stuttgart,  or 
Munich.  Our  sole  concern  and  purpose  has  been  the 
defeat  of  the  military  rulers  of  the  central  gov- 
ernments of  the  German  and  Austro-Hungarian 
Empires.  We  shall  consider,  therefore,  in  our  de- 
scription of  the  English,  French,  Italian  and  Ger- 
man systems  the  nature  and  character  of  the  general 
or  central  government  and  touch  upon  the  local  gov- 


6  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

ernments   only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary   to  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  general  government. 

Applying  these  general  considerations  or  principles 
to  the  chief  governments  of  Europe  now  engaged 
against  the  central  powers,  and  assuming  that  each 
government  is  fighting  for  its  own  existence  and 
ideals,  let  us  see  to  what  extent,  judged  from  the 
above  considerations,  each  country  is  fighting  for 
democracy.  For  the  American  the  problem  of 
understanding  the  governments  of  Europe  may 
best  be  approached  through  a  comparative  method, 
beginning  with  the  salient  facts  of  our  own  govern- 
ment before  proceeding  to  the  governments  of 
Europe. 


CHAPTER  II 

COMPARATIVE   GOVERNMENT 
Presidential  System 

The  American  Government 

The  American  government  differs  from  nearly  all 
other  governments  in  having  a  written  constitution 
superior  to,  and  binding  upon,  both  the  legislative 
and  executive  departments,  and  in  having  an  inde- 
pendent federal  judiciary  clothed  with  the  authority 
of  declaring  null  and  void  the  acts  of  other  depart- 
ments. The  Supreme  Court  is  itself,  however, 
created  by  the  Constitution,  which  in  turn  vests  in 
Congress  the  power  of  creating  inferior  courts,  so 
even  this  department  is  in  the  last  analysis  subject 
to  popular  control.  Sovereignty,  or  final  power, 
rests  directly  with  the  Constitution,  whereas  in 
England,  and  indeed  all  governments  of  Europe, 
except  Switzerland,  sovereignty  rests  directly  with 
the  law-making  department.  "The  American  Con- 
stitution," says  James  Bryce,  "is  the  living  voice  of 
the  people,  or  the  people  at  their  best."  With  a 
President  and  both  branches  of  Congress  elected  by 
the  people,  and  a  fundamental  law  made  and  changed 

7 


8  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

by  the  people,  and  that  law  binding  upon  all  govern- 
ing authorities,  America  has,  in  the  best  sense  of  the 
term,  a  popular  or  democratic  government. 

Parliamentary  Governments 

The  English  Government 

Gladstone  said  that  "the  American  Constitution 
is  the  greatest  piece  of  constructive  statesmanship 
ever  conceived  and  struck  off  by  the  brain  and 
purpose  of  man  at  a  single  time."  In  one  sense  only 
was  it  struck  off  at  a  single  time:  Fifty-five  men 
sat  four  months  at  Philadelphia  and  drafted  our 
written  Constitution.  But  those  men  merely  put 
into  form  the  experiences  of  their  own  colonies, 
their  observations  upon  the  English  government, 
and  the  principles  of  English  common  law;  and  the 
American  Constitution  has  expanded  since  then  in 
several  ways  —  by  amendments,  by  interpretation 
by  the  courts,  and  by  usage.  The  American  Con- 
stitution is  therefore  much  more  than  the  mere 
written  document. 

The  English  constitution  is  a  still  better  example 
of  how  political  systems  grow  and  cannot  be  made 
at  one  time.  No  formal  assembly  ever  sat  to  draft 
a  complete  scheme  of  government  for  England;  its 
constitution  developed  gradually,  and  we  can  men- 
tion only  some  of  the  great  landmarks  which  put  it 
into  its  present  form.     Some  of  these  were  in  the 


THE   ENGLISH  GOVERNMENT  9 

nature  of  treaties,  such  as  the  Union  with  Scotland 
in  1707,  and  the  Union  with  Ireland  in  1801;  others 
were  in  the  form  of  agreements  between  opposing 
political  forces  or  groups  —  such  as  the  Magna 
Carta,  the  Petition  of  Right,  and  the  Bill  of  Rights; 
a  third  source  of  the  constitution  comprised  statutes, 
such  as  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679,  the  Act  of 
Settlement  of  1701,  the  Fox  Libel  Act  of  1792,  the 
Reform  Acts  of  1832,  1867,  and  1884,  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835,  the  Parliamentary  and 
Municipal  Elections  Act  of  1872,  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Acts  of  1888  and  1894,  the  Parliament  Act  of 
1911,  and  the  numerous  suffrage  Acts  ending  with 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  in  1918. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  sources  of  the  English 
constitution.  There  are  unwritten  sources,  such  as 
the  common  law,  court  decisions,  and  understandings 
or  conventions,  as  they  are  called,  many  of  which 
have  never  been  put  into  written  form  by  legislative 
bodies.  The  student  who  wishes  to  form  some  idea 
of  the  English  constitution  may  do  so  by  an  examina- 
tion of  the  above-mentioned  documents  and  sources. 
For  our  present  purpose  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
remember  that  the  chief  organs  of  the  English 
government  gradually  grew  into  their  present  form. 
We  shall  therefore  turn  to  consider  what  they  are 
and  how  they  operate. 

In  England  the  chief  organs  of  the  central  govern- 
ment are  King,  Ministry,  and  Parliament  consisting 


10  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

of  two  houses.  The  King,  though  a  hereditary 
monarch,  has  practically  no  political  power,  and  the 
executive  authority  is  exercised  entirely  by  the 
Cabinet,  an  inner  circle  of  the  ministry,  which  con- 
sists of  the  heads  of  departments.  Their  number  is 
about  twenty,  while  the  number  included  in  the 
term  ministry  ranges  ordinarily  from  seventy-five 
to  one  hundred.  The  Cabinet  is  the  soul  and  center 
of  the  English  government,  and  while  in  some 
respects  its  position  is  not  unlike  that  of  the  American 
Cabinet,  its  functions  are  both  legislative  and 
executive,  and  its  relation  to  the  legislative  branch  is 
entirely  different.  The  American  Cabinet  is  inde- 
pendent of  Congress;  the  British  Cabinet  consists 
of  members  and  leaders  of  Parliament  selected  by 
the  Prime  Minister  largely  because  of  that  leader- 
ship. If  the  members  of  the  President's  Cabinet 
were  also  at  the  same  time  members  of  the  dominant 
party  in  the  Senate  or  House  of  Representatives, 
and  if  the  President's  term  of  office  were  dependent 
upon  his  ability  to  lead  Congress,  we  should  have 
essentially  the  English  system  of  cabinet  government. 
The  House  of  Lords  consists  of  about  680  members 
who  hold  seats  —  (1)  by  hereditary  right,  (2)  by 
creation  of  the  sovereign,  (3)  by  virtue  of  office  — 
Law  Lords,  English  archbishops  and  bishops,  (4)  by 
election  for  life  —  Irish  peers,  and  (5)  by  election 
for  duration  of  Parliament  —  Scottish  peers.  While 
none  of  the  members  of  the  British  upper  house  is 


THE  ENGLISH  GOVERNMENT  11 

elected  by  popular  suffrage,  in  1911  their  power  was 
finally  so  restricted  by  the  famous  Parliament  Act 
that  we  may  now  say  in  truth  that  the  legislative 
power  of  England  resides  in  the  popularly  elected 
House  of  Commons.  By  that  Act  all  money  bills 
passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  sent  to  the 
House  of  Lords  become  a  law  one  month  after  they 
have  been  sent  to  that  house.  All  other  public 
bills,  except  a  bill  extending  the  duration  of  Parlia- 
ment, if  passed  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  three 
successive  sessions,  whether  of  the  same  Parliament 
or  not,  and  presented  in  each  case  to  the  House  of 
Lords,  become  law  without  the  assent  of  the  upper 
house  providing  two  years  have  elapsed  between 
the  second  reading  in  the  first  session  and  the 
third  reading  in  the  third  session.  The  Parliament 
Act  also  limited  the  duration  of  Parliament  to  five 
years  instead  of  seven.  Until  about  1832  the  House 
of  Lords  was  the  dominant  chamber,  but  the  Re- 
form Act  of  that  year  brought  the  lower  house  into 
greater  prominence,  and  since  then  the  House  of 
Lords  has  gradually  declined  in  power  and  influence 
until  the  Act  of  1911  virtually  removed  the  last  ves- 
tige of  privilege  from  the  government  of  England. 

The  House  of  Commons  is  therefore  the  real 
legislative  body.  It  consists  of  707  members  elected 
by  universal  popular  suffrage  for  a  term  of  five 
years  unless  a  prorogation  of  Parliament  and  a  new 
election    ends    their    term   before   that   period    has 


12  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

expired.  Until  the  Representation  of  the  People 
Act  in  1918  the  number  of  members  in  the  House  of 
Commons  was  670,  but  that  Act  redistributed  the 
seats  in  Great  Britain  on  the  basis  of  one  member 
for  every  70,000  of  the  population,  and  a  separate 
bill  gave  Ireland  one  member  for  every  43,000  of 
the  population.  The  principal  act  also  greatly 
extended  the  right  of  suffrage  to  men,  and  it  also 
included  women  over  thirty  years  of  age,  so  that  one 
third  of  the  population  now  has  the  voting  privilege. 
Its  total  effect  was  to  double  the  voting  population. 

With  these  facts  before  us  we  may  now  consider 
how  and  why  England  is,  with  the  possible  exception 
of  Switzerland,  politically  the  most  democratic 
government  in  the  world.  The  first  fact  to  be  noted 
is,  that  England  has  had,  since  1689,  two  great 
political  parties,  and  that  the  party  in  power  has 
complete  control  of  the  government.  That  is  what 
is  meant  by  "party  government."  There  are  of 
course  always  minor  parties  which  sometimes  hold 
the  balance  of  power  between  the  two  great  parties. 
The  last  general  election  in  1910  gave  the  Liberals 
272,  the  Laborites  42,  the  Irish  Nationalists  76,  the 
Independent  Nationalists  8,  and  the  Conservatives 
and  Unionists  272.  The  Liberals  had  the  support 
of  the  Laborites,  Irish  Nationalists  and  Independent 
Nationalists,  thus  giving  the  Government  a  majority 
of  126. 

But  in  order  to  understand  the  Parliamentary 


THE  ENGLISH  GOVERNMENT  13 

system  of  government  let  us  assume,  what  is  normally 
the  case,  that  the  two  great  groups,  called  for  the 
sake  of  convenience  Conservatives  and  Liberals, 
are  facing  an  election.  If  the  Conservatives  win 
and  the  majority  of  that  party  controls  the  House  of 
Commons,  then  the  leader  of  the  Conservatives 
becomes  Prime  Minister,  and  every  member  of  his 
Cabinet  will  be  selected  from  the  Conservative 
party  in  accordance  with  the  expressed  will  of  the 
majority  of  the  voters.  Now  let  us  assume  that  the 
Conservative  party  after  being  in  power  for  a  time 
commits  the  country  to  a  policy  which  the  people 
disapprove,  let  us  say  a  new  tax  on  incomes.  If 
popular  opinion,  as  expressed  in  newspapers  and 
various  other  organs  of  public  expression,  opposes 
the  tax,  there  will  be  such  a  vigorous  protest  against 
the  party  in  power  that  the  King,  acting  solely  upon 
the  advice  of  the  Prime  Minister,  who  is  head  of  the 
party,  will  be  compelled  to  dissolve  Parliament  and 
issue  writs  for  a  new  election.  The  question  upon 
which  that  election  will  turn  will  be  the  income  tax, 
and  the  people  will  decide  it  by  voting  for  candidates 
who  favor  or  oppose  the  tax.  If  the  ministry  which 
precipitated  the  election  is  sustained  by  the  return 
of  a  Conservative  party  majority,  the  old  Cabinet 
remains  in  power  and  their  policy  is  continued.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Liberal  party  returns  a 
majority,  the  old  Cabinet  resigns  and  the  leader  of 
the  Liberals  is  formally  appointed  by  the  Crown  as 


14  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

Prime  Minister.  The  latter  then  chooses  all  the 
members  of  his  Cabinet  from  the  Liberal  party; 
and  a  Liberal  government  pursues  a  policy  in 
accordance  with  the  expressed  wishes  of  the 
electorate. 

It  sometimes  happens  that  in  a  crisis,  such  as  the 
present  war,  when  one  or  two  minor  parties,  such  as 
the  Labor  and  Irish  Nationalist  parties,  vigorously 
oppose  the  Cabinet  or  Government,  leaders  from 
these  parties   are  called   into   the   Cabinet  and  a 
"coalition  ministry"  is  formed.     In  fact,  the  present 
war  has  furnished  not  only  an  illustration  of  coali- 
tion, but  also  an  example  of  the  elasticity  of  the 
English    system    to    meet    a   crisis.     The    Cabinet 
prior  to  December,  1916,  consisted  of  the  political 
chiefs  of  the  principal  departments  of  government 
and    exceeded    twenty    in    number.     In    February, 
1918,   the   Cabinet   was   reduced   to   six  members, 
three  of  whom  were  "  without  portfolio."    The  pres- 
ent "War  Cabinet"  consists  of  D.  Lloyd  George,  who 
is  Prime  Minister  and  first  Lord  of  the  Treasury; 
Lord  Curzon,  leader  of  the  House  of  Lords  and 
Lord  President  of  the  Council;  A.  Bonar  Law,  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer  and  leader  of  the  House 
of  Commons;    those  without  portfolio  are  Austen 
Chamberlain,  G.  N.  Barnes,  and  Lieutenant-General 
J.  C.  Smutz.     (See  Statesman's  Year-Book,  1918.) 
It  is  indeed  a  high  tribute  to  the  English  people 
and  to  English  statesmen  thus  to  lay  aside  political 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRANCE  15 

differences  and  to  cooperate  in  the  nation's  day  of 
need.  The  ability  of  a  government  to  adapt  itself 
to  such  a  crisis,  to  unite  in  action,  yet  allow  the 
greatest  freedom  of  speech  and  press,  to  extend 
suffrage  beyond  that  of  any  other  government  on 
earth,  at  the  same  time  calling  to  leadership  the 
aristocracy  of  intellect,  clearly  shows  democracy  in 
its  most  enlightened  form. 

Let  us  now  examine  from  the  same  point  of  view 
the  government  of  France. 

The  Government  of  France 

The  defeat  of  the  French  armies  at  the  hands  of 
the  Germans  in  1870  destroyed  the  tottering  Empire 
of  Napoleon  III  and  gave  to  France  its  present 
Republic.  The  constitution  of  the  third  Republic 
was  framed  by  a  provisional  government  set  up  from 
1870  to  1875,  when  five  constitutional  laws  were 
passed  providing  for  a  government  essentially  as  it 
is  to-day.  Like  the  American  Constitution,  the 
French  Constitution  is  a  written  document,  or  rather 
a  collection  of  written  documents,  but  unlike  the 
American  Constitution  it  may  be  revised  and 
amended  by  the  two  legislative  chambers  sitting 
together  in  joint  session  and  called  the  National 
Assembly. 

The  chief  organs  of  government  are  a  President, 
a  Ministry  or  Cabinet,  and  a  Parliament  consisting 


16  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

of  a  Senate  and  a  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The 
President  is  chosen  for  seven  years  by  the  National 
Assembly  or  joint  session  of  the  two  chambers. 
Legally  the  French  President  has  numerous  and 
important  powers  including  the  initiation  of  laws 
concurrently  with  the  members  of  the  two  chambers, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  right  to  introduce  bills  in  the 
chambers.  Custom  has  given  him  still  greater 
powers  in  the  right  of  issuing  ordinances  having  the 
force  of  supplementary  legislation.  On  the  other 
hand,  his  veto  power  is  merely  suspensive,  i.e.  he 
may  demand  a  reconsideration  by  Parliament  of 
any  bill  which  it  has  passed;  but  if  reenacted  by  a 
simple  majority,  it  is  incumbent  upon  him  to  pro- 
mulgate the  bill  as  a  law.  The  weakness  of  his 
position  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  constitutional  law 
of  1875  provides  that  "every  act  of  the  President  of 
the  Republic  shall  be  countersigned  by  a  minister," 
and  "the  ministers  shall  be  collectively  responsible 
to  the  chambers  for  the  general  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  individually  for  their  personal  acts." 

Like  the  King  of  England,  the  French  President 
has  much  superficial  authority  but  little  real  power, 
because  the  powers  vested  in  him  are  performed  by 
the  ministers  —  ministers  who  are  responsible  for 
their  acts  to  Parliament.  The  President  has  power 
to  select  these  ministers,  but  the  exigencies  of  party 
strife  practically  dictate  the  choice  to  be  made,  and 
after  the  President  has  signified  the  party  leader 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRANCE  17 

who  shall  be  Prime  Minister,  he  has  customarily 
little  or  nothing  further  to  say  in  the  selection  of  the 
Cabinet.  He  presides  over  the  Council  of  State, 
an  administrative  body  and  administrative  court 
of  last  resort,  but  is  not  usually  present  at  Cabinet 
meetings  in  which  the  real  policy  of  government  is 
determined.  But  when  a  cabinet  falls,  since  there 
is  no  victorious  opposition  leader  as  in  England, 
his  duty  in  the  formation  of  a  new  cabinet  becomes 
more  important  than  that  of  the  King  of  England. 
Yet  in  general  the  President's  power  is  but  nominal, 
the  real  executive  is  the  ministry. 

Acting  in  a  collective  capacity  the  French  ministry 
has  two  functions  —  one,  as  a  council  of  state,  and 
the  other,  as  a  cabinet.  In  the  former  capacity  the 
ministers  have  general  supervision  of  the  administra- 
tion of  laws;  in  the  latter,  they  formulate  the  policies 
of  government  and  defend  these  policies  in  the 
chambers.  Collectively,  the  ministers  are  responsi- 
ble in  general  matters,  and  individually  in  particular 
ones,  nominally  to  the  two  chambers,  but  in  reality 
to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  alone.  The  importance 
of  responsibility  to  the  lower  chamber  will  become 
apparent  after  we  have  considered  the  composition 
of  the  two  chambers  forming  the  legislative  branch. 
In  the  first  place  let  us  examine  the  upper  chamber. 

By  the  law  of  1875  it  was  provided  that  the 
Senate  should  consist  of  300  members,  of  whom  225 
should  be  elected  for  a  term  of  nine  years  from  the 


18  DEMOCRACY  tw.  AUTOCRACY 

Departments  (85  subdivisions  into  which  France  is 
divided)  and  from  the  colonies  by  indirect  methods 
of  election,  while  75  members  were  to  be  elected  by 
the  National  Assembly  itself,  for  life.  This  system 
in  the  main  continues  in  effect  to-day,  except  that 
in  1884  provision  was  made  whereby  the  method  of 
electing  for  life  should  be  abolished,  and  all  vacancies 
occurring  among  the  life  members  should  thereafter 
be  filled  in  the  regular  manner.  There  are  at 
present  few  surviving  life  members,  and  when  they 
shall  have  disappeared  the  Senate  will  comprise  a 
body  of  300  members  apportioned  among  the  depart- 
ments in  approximate  proportion  to  population  and 
chosen  in  all  cases  by  bodies  of  electors  who  have 
themselves  been  elected  directly  by  the  people. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies,  to  whom  the  Cabinet 
is  responsible,  consists  of  597  members  and  rests 
upon  a  thoroughly  democratic  basis.  The  franchise 
is  extended  to  all  male  inhabitants  twenty-one 
years  of  age  who  are  not  bankrupts,  convicts,  persons 
under  guardianship,  or  in  active  military  or  naval 
service.  The  full  membership  of  the  lower  chamber 
is  elected  simultaneously  for  a  term  of  four  years 
unless  the  chamber  is  dissolved  before  that  term 
expires.  They  are  elected  by  secret  ballot  from 
districts  similar  to  those  of  the  American  House  of 
Representatives  and  of  the  English  House  of  Com- 
mons. As  in  America,  the  French  chambers  have 
in  general  equal  powers  in  the  matter  of  initiation, 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  FRANCE  19 

enactment,  and  amendment  of  laws;  as  to  the 
origin  of  money  bills,  impeachment,  and  the  trial 
in  cases  of  impeachment,  the  powers  of  the  French 
chambers  also  correspond  respectively  with  the 
powers  of  the  two  chambers  of  the  American 
Congress. 

While  France  has  the  parliamentary  system  of 
government  patterned  after  the  English  model,  the 
political  parties  of  the  French  Republic  are  more 
unstable,  more  numerous,  and  the  lines  by  which 
they  are  marked  off  from  each  other  less  distinct 
than  in  England;  hence  party  government  in  the 
strict  sense  is  less  successful,  and  in  the  last  two 
decades  a  union  of  several  parties,  or  the  bloc,  as  it 
is  called,  has  largely  shaped  the  policies  of  govern- 
ment. While  France  has  therefore  a  parliamentary 
system  of  government  similar  to  that  of  England, 
the  French  Ministry  is  clothed  with  much  more 
authority  than  the  English  Cabinet;  it  has  many 
powers  which  in  England  are  lodged  with  the 
legislators  or  the  courts  of  law.  We  need  not  here 
dwell  upon  the  reasons  for  this  greater  emphasis 
upon  the  executive  control,  for  our  purpose  is  merely 
to  show  that  France,  as  England,  has  a  democratic 
and  responsible  government,  and  that  in  the  heroic 
struggle  she  has  been  making  in  defense  of  her  coun- 
try, her  people,  and  her  civilization,  she  has  been 
fighting  for  democracy. 


20  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

The  Government  of  Italy 

Before  the  French  Revolution  the  peninsula  of 
Italy  was  divided  into  numerous  petty  kingdoms, 
principalities,  and  independent  republics.  It  had 
for  a  long  time  been  disrupted  and  misgoverned. 
Before  Napoleon's  invasion  in  1796,  the  greater 
portion  was  under  the  dominion  of  two  foreign 
dynasties  —  the  Austrian  Hapsburgs  and  the  Spanish 
Bourbons.  But  with  the  French  invasion  came  an 
overturning  of  the  old  political  arrangements  in 
Italy  and  also  an  awakening  of  the  Italian  people  to 
a  consciousness  of  unity  and  strength  and  to  national 
aspirations.  The  French  influence  under  Napoleon, 
which  lasted  from  1796  to  1815,  left  a  permanent 
impress  upon  the  political  institutions  of  Italy, 
kindled  the  fires  of  self-determination,  and  directed 
the  discordant  states  toward  the  highway  to  national 
unity.  It  was  a  long  road,  however,  and  we  cannot 
here  trace  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune  and  misfortune 
until  the  goal  was  reached.  It  was  a  dramatic  and 
heroic  struggle  against  internal  disorder  and  foreign 
intrigue  —  a  struggle  in  which  the  names  of  Victor 
Emanuel,  Cavour,  Garibaldi,  and  Mazzini  became 
illustrious  in  Italian  history.  But  unity  came  at 
last.  The  first  definite  step  toward  that  end  was 
taken  when,  during  a  great  popular  upheaval  in 
1848,  Charles  Albert,  a  prince  of  the  House  of 
Savoy,  with  the  title  of  King  of  Sardinia,  granted  to 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ITALY  21 

his  subjects  in  Piedmont  a  royal  charter  called  the 
Statute. 

Italy  had  now  found  a  leader  and  a  model  demo- 
cratic constitution,  and  one  state  after  another 
adopted  this  charter  as  its  fundamental  law  until, 
in  1871,  Italian  unity  was  complete.  The  Kingdom 
of  Sardinia  had  expanded  into  the  Kingdom  of 
Italy  without  any  alteration  of  the  original  Statuto, 
which  still  remains  as  the  written  constitution  of 
the  nation.  No  provision  for  amendment  was  made 
when  the  document  was  framed,  and  no  change  has 
been  made  in  it  since.  But  as  in  England,  custom 
has  changed  practice,  and  the  government  of  Italy 
as  it  is  to-day  must  be  considered  from  its  actual 
practice  rather  than  from  any  fundamental  law. 
For  our  purpose  we  need  only  to  consider  the  three 
most  important  organs  of  government  —  the  King, 
the  Ministry,  and  Parliament. 

Italy,  like  England  and  France,  has  the  parlia- 
mentary system  of  government.  At  the  head  of 
the  nation  is  the  King,  a  hereditary  monarch, 
vested  by  law  with  much  power,  but  in  practice  he 
has  little  more  than  the  King  of  England  or  the 
President  of  France.  By  law  his  sanction  is  neces- 
sary to  the  validity  of  statutes  passed  by  Parliament, 
but  in  practice  he  never  vetoes  a  measure.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Constitution  he  has  the  treaty-making 
power;  but  in  practice  all  treaties,  except  military 
conventions  and  alliances,  are  submitted  to  Parlia- 


22  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

merit  for  approval.  In  fact,  all  the  powers  of  the 
King  are  exercised  in  his  name  by  the  ministers  who 
are  responsible  to  the  popular  chamber.  He  is 
seldom  present  at  Cabinet  meetings  and  has  almost 
no  influence  over  domestic  politics.  Perhaps  his 
greatest  influence  is  in  his  appointment  of  a  suc- 
cessor to  a  Cabinet  leader  when  in  a  crisis  the 
Ministry  resigns,  for  Italy  is  split  up  into  a  number 
of  small  parties,  none  of  which  has  a  majority  in 
the  lower  chamber.  The  King  may  therefore  select, 
though  from  a  limited  number  of  party  leaders,  any 
one  he  pleases  to  form  a  new  Cabinet,  whereas  in 
England  the  King  has  no  choice  —  he  must  select 
the  leader  of  the  dominant  party. 

Political  parties  in  England  are,  however,  so 
much  older  than  parties  in  Italy,  that  there  is  danger 
of  inferring,  through  comparisons,  that  Italy  has 
not  attained  to  the  full  stature  of  parliamentary 
government.  It  must  be  remembered  that  in  Italy 
the  party  system  did  not  begin  until  after  the  death 
of  Cavour  in  1861,  and  since  then  the  industrial, 
social,  and  religious  changes  have  been  too  rapid  to 
permit  of  political  development  along  traditional  or 
historical  lines.  During  the  first  decade  after 
Cavour's  death,  the  continual  fear  of  war  with 
France  prevented  the  completion  of  Italian  unity 
and  consequently  a  centering  of  interest  upon 
internal  affairs.  Soon  after  that  danger  had  passed, 
the  question  of  Church  and  State  came  to  deflect 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ITALY  23 

political  development  from  the  course  it  would 
normally  have  taken  and  has  taken  in  other  countries 
where  the  Church  is  a  factor  in  politics.  As  a 
protest  against  the  alleged  usurpation  of  secular 
power,  Pope  Pius  IX  issued  a  decree  (1883)  declaring 
it  "inexpedient"  that  Catholics  should  vote  at 
parliamentary  elections.  This  prevented  the  forma- 
tion of  a  clerical  party,  which  would  naturally  have 
formed  the  backbone  of  a  Conservative  party. 
Then  the  rise  of  Socialism  (1872-1891)  developed 
groups  distinguishable  from  the  positions  occupied 
in  the  Chamber  —  Center,  Left,  Extreme  Left  — 
rather  than  the  position  taken  on  public  questions. 
With  no  conservative  check,  parties  came  to  differ 
only  in  degree  of  radicalism,  and  such  was  virtually 
the  situation  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War. 
In  1913  the  lower  house  elected  the  following: 
Constitutionalists,  318;  Radicals,  70;  Republicans, 
16;  Socialists,  77;  Syndicalists,  3;   Catholics,  24. 

The  Ministry  usually  consists  of  heads  of  depart- 
ments, although  occasionally  a  member  is  appointed 
without  a  portfolio  solely  to  help  in  shaping  the 
policy  of  government  and  in  defending  it  in  the  cham- 
bers. After  the  Premier,  or  President  of  the  Council, 
as  he  is  called,  has  been  appointed,  he  nominates 
the  other  members,  who  are  then  formally  appointed 
by  the  crown.  If  a  minister  is  appointed  who  is  not 
a  member  of  either  house,  he  is  obliged  by  custom 
to  become  a  candidate  for   the   next   vacant  seat 


24  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  unless  he  is  created  a 
Senator. 

The  Italian  Parliament  is  composed  of  a  Senate 
and  a  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The  Senate  consists 
of  383  members,  including  the  members  of  the 
royal  family  and  members  appointed  for  life  by  the 
crown;  but  the  choice  is  limited  to  twenty-one 
classes  of  citizens  and  to  those  who  have  attained 
the  age  of  at  least  forty  years.  Among  the  more 
important  classes  are:  bishops,  high  officials,  deputies 
who  have  served  six  years,  members  of  the  Royal 
Academy  of  Science  for  seven  years,  citizens  who 
pay  over  $600  in  taxes,  and  others  who  have  dis- 
tinguished themselves  in  the  service  of  the  state. 
A  further  limitation  is  placed  upon  the  King  in  the 
appointment  to  this  chamber  by  the  fact  that 
the  Senators  themselves  determine  to  which  of  the 
twenty-one  categories  an  appointee  belongs,  and 
also  by  the  fact  that  in  practice  appointment  by 
the  King  actually  means  appointment  by  the 
Ministry  commanding  a  majority  in  the  lower 
chamber.  In  theory  the  two  chambers  have  equal 
power  in  the  matter  of  legislation,  except  in  money 
bills,  which  must  originate  in  the  lower  house;  but 
in  practice  the  Senate  is  little  more  than  a  revising 
body,  distinctly  inferior  to  the  elected  Senate  of 
France. 

The  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  composed  of  508 
members  elected  from  single  districts  by  popular 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  ITALY  25 

vote.  Suffrage  is  granted  to  nearly  all  male  citizens 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  it  being  denied  only  to 
those  less  than  thirty  years  of  age  who  cannot  read 
or  write.  As  in  England,  a  Deputy  need  not  reside 
in  the  district  from  which  he  is  elected;  he  must, 
however,  be  a  citizen,  at  least  thirty  years  of  age,  in 
possession  of  full  civil  and  political  rights,  and  not 
belonging  to  certain  classes  or  professions  whose 
members  are  debarred  by  law.  Deputies  are  elected 
for  a  term  of  five  years  unless  a  dissolution  of 
Parliament  intervenes  to  end  the  term  before  that 
period  expires.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  average 
interval  between  elections  is  about  three  years. 
The  organization,  rules,  and  procedure  of  both 
Italian  chambers  are  in  general  those  common  to 
all  democratic  assemblies  of  the  Continent. 

Such,  briefly  stated,  are  the  position,  composition, 
and  relation  of  the  chief  organs  of  the  Italian  govern- 
ment. With  its  parliamentary  system  providing 
for  an  executive  responsible  to  the  lower  chamber, 
and  that  chamber  elected  by  popular  vote,  excluding 
only  a  small  number  of  the  illiterate,  Italy  has 
carried  democracy  to  its  greatest  possible  length 
compatible  with  her  social  and  economic  develop- 
ment. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    GERMANY 

Let  us  now  apply  to  the  government  of  Germany 
the  same  standards  by  which  we  have  tested  the 
character  of  the  governments  of  the  United  States, 
England,  France,  and  Italy.  We  shall  then  see  to 
what  extent  the  "masters  of  Germany"  represent 
the  people  of  Germany,  and  we  shall  also  see  to 
what  extent  Germany  approaches  a  democracy. 
It  will  enable  us  to  understand  more  clearly  what 
President  Wilson  meant  when  he  said,  "When  the 
German  people  have  spokesmen  whose  words  we 
can  believe,  and  when  those  spokesmen  are  ready  in 
the  name  of  the  people  to  accept  the  common  judg- 
ment of  the  nations  as  to  what  shall  henceforth  be 
the  bases  of  law  and  covenant  for  the  life  of  the 
world  —  we  shall  be  willing  and  glad  to  pay  the 
full  price  for  peace,  and  pay  it  ungrudgingly.  We 
know  what  that  price  will  be.  It  will  be  full,  im- 
partial justice  —  justice  done  at  every  point  and  to 
every  nation  that  the  final  settlement  must  affect, 
our  enemies  as  well  as  our  friends." 

The  statement  here  quoted  has  frequently  been 
criticised  on  the  ground  that  it  proposes  to  interfere 
with  the  internal  affairs  of  a  foreign  state,  and  is 

2G 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GERMANY  27 

therefore  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  international  law 
and  the  comity  of  nations.     In  reply  it  may  be  said 
that  the  President  is  merely  declaring  the  policy  of 
the  United  States  in  future  dealings  with  Germany. 
The  President  is,  moreover,  proposing  no  organic 
change  in  the  German  government.     When,  during 
the   conflict   between    the    American    colonies    and 
Great  Britain  the  ministry  of  Lord  North  fell  in 
1782,  and  the  Whigs,  who  were  our  friends,  came 
into  power,  there  was,  in  the  best  sense  of  the  term, 
a  change  of  government.     But  that  change  did  not 
involve  a  constitutional  or  organic  change  in  the 
English  government.     It  simply  meant  a  change  of 
rulers;  it  meant  the  coming  into  power  of  a  govern- 
ment that  could  be  trusted,  a  government  repre- 
senting a  people  in   sympathy  with   ourselves  and 
with  our  democratic  aims;    and  the  result  was  the 
peace   of    1783    which   gave   us   our   independence. 
Nor  have  the  refusals  of  President  Wilson  to  deal 
with  Germany  except  upon  the  basis  of  a  responsible 
government  been  without  effect,  for  on  October  21, 
1918,  in  reply  to  questions  concerning  an  armistice, 
the     German     Foreign     Minister     admitted     that, 
"Hitherto  the  representation  of  the  people  of  the 
German  Empire  has  not  been   endowed   with  an 
influence   on   the   formation    of   the   government," 
but  adds  that,   "These  conditions  have  just  now 
undergone  a  fundamental  change,  a  new  government 
has  been  formed  in  complete  accordance  with  the 


28  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

wishes  of  the  representation  of  the  people,  based  on 
equal,  universal,  secret,  direct  franchise,"  and  that 
"the  first  act  of  the  new  government  has  been  to 
lay  before  the  Reichstag  a  bill  to  alter  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  empire  so  that  the  consent  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  people  is  required  for  decisions  on 
war  and  peace."  This  is  both  a  remarkable  ad- 
mission and  an  unusual  proposal  on  the  part  of 
the  German  government;  and  at  the  present  writing 
(October  22,  1918)  it  is  impossible  to  predict  to  what 
extent,  if  any,  vital  and  fundamental  reforms  will 
actually  be  carried  out.  Nevertheless,  the  quota- 
tion is  such  an  excellent  statement  both  of  the 
defects  and  the  needs  of  the  present  German  govern- 
ment that  I  have  felt  justified  in  citing  it.  Moreover, 
it  completely  vindicates  the  position  of  President 
Wilson  in  insisting  upon  dealing,  in  this  case  at 
least,  only  with  a  popular  or  responsible  Germany. 

Let  us  now  see  to  what  extent  our  quarrel  is  with 
the  "masters"  or  rulers  of  the  German  Empire 
rather  than  with  the  liberal  spirits  who  in  Germany 
to-day  are  supporting  —  so  far  as  support  is  possible 
—  President  Wilson's  liberal  program.  But  to  un- 
derstand the  problem  it  will  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  chief  organs  of  the  German  government 
and  their  relation  to  the  people. 

After  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
in  1815,  erected  into  a  loose  confederation  thirty- 
nine  German  states  under  the  presidency  of  Austria. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GERMANY     29 

This  arrangement  lasted  until  the  crushing  defeat  of 
Austria  by  Prussia  in  18C6.  Thereafter  Austria 
was  excluded  from  all  participation  in  German 
politics.  In  the  following  year  Bismarck  succeeded 
in  uniting  twenty-two  German  states  north  of  the 
river  Main  into  the  North  German  Confederation 
under  the  leadership  of  Prussia.  A  written  Con- 
stitution was  adopted  by  the  Confederation  which 
forms  the  legal  basis  of  the  government  even  at  the 
present  time.  Four  South  German  states  were 
added  in  1870  by  treaties,  and  in  1871,  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  the  name  of 
the  North  German  Confederation  was  changed  to 
German  Empire.  The  addition  of  the  four  states 
by  treaties,  however,  made  a  modification  of  the 
original  constitution  of  the  North  German  Con- 
federation necessary,  and  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Emperor  it  was  revised  and  approved  by  the  Reichs- 
tag, April  14,  1871,  and  this  revision  constitutes  the 
Imperial  Constitution  of  to-day. 

Under  this  Constitution  the  Empire  is  composed 
of  twenty-five  states,  each  having  a  measure  of 
local  self-government,  and  the  imperial  domain  of 
Alsace-Lorraine,  which  in  1911  was  elevated  into  a 
condition  of  quasi-statehood.  We  shall  not  attempt 
to  describe  the  government  of  the  twenty-six  states, 
for  our  concern  is  solely  with  the  Empire,  but  it 
should  be  remembered  that  they  are  unequal  in 
population,  in  area,  and,  contrary  to  the  relationship 


30  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

of  the  forty-eight  American  states,  they  are  unequal 
in  their  relation  to  the  Empire.  That  is  to  say, 
whereas  the  American  federal  government  is  based 
upon  the  equality  of  states  and  the  equality  of 
individuals  in  relation  to  that  government,  the 
German  Empire  is  based  upon  the  inequality  of  both 
states  and  individuals  in  their  relations  to  the 
central  government.  And  we  may  add  at  once, 
that  Prussia,  containing  three-fifths  of  the  total 
population  of  the  Empire,  is  the  dominant  state. 

Now  it  might  appear  that  in  view  of  the  large 
population  of  Prussia  a  preponderating  influence  in 
the  affairs  of  government  by  that  state  would  be 
justified  and  entirely  consistent  with  democratic 
ideals;  and  indeed,  it  would  be  if  the  Imperial 
Constitution  or  sovereign  power  rested  on  the  basis 
of  popular  representation  expressed  by  a  popular 
vote.  But  this  is  not  the  case;  sovereignty  rests 
not  in  a  national  Parliament  elected  by  the  people, 
but  in  the  Bundesrat  or  upper  chamber,  which,  as 
we  shall  presently  see,  is  not  a  popular  body.  Nor 
is  the  written  Constitution  a  popular  instrument  in 
any  sense  of  the  term.  While  the  procedure  in 
amending  it  is  in  general  identical  with  that  of 
ordinary  legislative  enactments,  there  is  an  im- 
portant exception:  an  amendment  is  defeated  if 
fourteen  votes  are  cast  against  it;  and  Prussia 
controls  twenty  votes  in  the  Bundesrat.  Thus  the 
Kaiser,  who  controls  the  Prussian  votes,  may  block 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GERMANY  31 

any   amendment   to   the    Constitution,    no    matter 
how  greatly  desired  by  the  people. 

With  these  general  observations  concerning  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  German  Empire,  let  us 
consider  briefly  the  position  and  powers  of  the  chief 
organs  of  government.  They  are:  Emperor,  Chan- 
cellor, Bundesrat,  and  Reichstag.  The  Imperial 
Constitution  provides  that  "to  the  King  of  Prussia 
shall  belong  the  presidency  of  the  Confederation 
and  he  shall  bear  the  title  of  German  Emperor." 
In  other  words,  there  is  lodged  in  the  hands  of  a 
single  individual  the  two  highest  offices  in  Germany; 
the  one  places  him  at  the  head  of  the  largest  state 
in  Germany,  and  the  other  at  the  head  of  the  Empire 
itself.  As  King  of  Prussia  his  powers  are  very 
comprehensive,  exceeding  those  of  any  other  Euro- 
pean sovereign;  as  Emperor  his  powers  are  less 
numerous  but,  so  far  as  they  go,  of  fundamental 
importance.  He  is  commander-in-chief  of  the  army 
and  navy  and  controls  the  entire  military  organiza- 
tion of  both  the  states  and  the  Empire.  The  entire 
foreign  policy,  including  war  and  peace,  is  virtually 
in  his  hands,  for  the  limitations  imposed  by  requiring 
the  consent  of  the  Bundesrat  and  Reichstag  in 
certain  matters  are  in  law,  by  virtue  of  his  relation 
to  Prussia  and  the  Bundesrat,  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
make  restraint  next  to  impossible;  and  in  practice 
such  restrictions  are  seldom  applied.  In  legislation, 
in  appointment  of  judges  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and 


32  DEMOCRACY  iw.  AUTOCRACY 

finally  in  the  execution  of  laws,  Ins  powers  are  so 
extensive  that  he  may  virtually  control  the  three 
branches  of  government  which  in  America  are 
limited  by  the  Constitution  and  by  our  elaborate 
system  of  checks  and  balances. 

The  Emperor  appoints  the  imperial  Chancellor, 
who  "shall  preside  in  the  Bundesrat  and  supervise 
the  control  of  business."  While  the  Constitution 
provides  that  all  decrees  and  ordinances  shall  be 
countersigned  by  the  Chancellor,  "who  thereby 
assumes  the  responsibility  for  them,"  that  responsi- 
bility is  not,  as  in  England  and  France,  to  the  lower 
or  popular  branch  of  the  legislature,  but  to  the 
Emperor.  Moreover,  the  place  filled  by  the  minis- 
try in  the  other  governmental  systems,  described 
above,  is  occupied  by  the  Chancellor  alone.  Tins 
fact  in  itself  would  not,  however,  be  of  great  signifi- 
cance if  the  Chancellor  were  responsible  for  his  acts 
to  the  legislative  branch  of  government,  and  if  that 
branch  were  responsible  to  the  people.  Such  practice 
would  soon  develop  a  parliamentary  system  of  gov- 
ernment, and  the  legal  power  of  the  Emperor  would 
become  a  mere  adornment  of  an  empty  title.  But 
as  long  as  the  Emperor's  word,  spoken  either  by 
himself  or  spoken  through  his  mouthpiece,  the  Chan- 
cellor, remains  unchallenged  by  a  popular  or  repre- 
sentative body,  Germany  can  in  no  sense  lay  claim 
to  a  responsible  government.  In  our  consideration 
of  the  German  government  thus  far,  then,  we  find 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GERMANY  33 

nothing  in  the  powers  and  functions  of  the  Emperor 
approaching  a  democracy.  Let  us  therefore  see  to 
what  extent  the  two  chief  organs  yet  to  be  considered 
approach  the  democratic  idea. 

We  wiljl  begin  with  the  Bundesrat  —  "that  ex- 
traordinary mixture  of  legislative  chamber,  executive 
council,  court  of  appeal,  and  permanent  assembly  of 
diplomats."  It  is  the  most  German  of  all  German 
institutions.  It  is  composed  of  delegates  appointed 
by  the  princes  of  the  states  and  the  senates  of  the 
free  cities  of  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Liibeck.  Of 
the  total  number  of  votes  allotted  to  each  state, 
Prussia  has  seventeen  (but  controls  three  more), 
Bavaria  six,  Saxony  four,  Wurttemberg  four,  Baden 
three,  Hesse  three,  Mecklenberg-Schwerin  two, 
Brunswick  two,  Alsace-Lorraine,  which  in  1911 
nominally  became  a  state,  three,  and  the  seventeen 
other  states  one  each,  making  in  all  a  total  of  sixty- 
one  votes.  It  is  important  to  note  at  the  outset 
that  the  Bundesrat  is  not  a  senate,  but  a  body  of 
diplomats  acting  under  instructions  from  the  govern- 
ing authorities  who  appointed  them.  The  members 
vote  not  as  individuals,  but  by  states  as  a  unit. 
Thus  Prussia  casts  twenty  votes  in  a  block  according 
to  instructions  from  the  King  of  Prussia.  It  is  also 
important  to  note  that  the  Bundesrat  may  be  called 
into  session  by  the  Emperor  without  calling  the 
Reichstag,  but  the  Reichstag  may  not  meet  without 
the  Bundesrat,  and  that  the  Bundesrat  always  holds 


34  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

its  sessions  in  secret;  and  in  case  of  a  tie,  the  Prussian 
delegation  casts  the  deciding  vote;  or  in  case  of  a 
bill  changing  the  status  quo  of  the  army  or  navy  or 
tariff,  Prussia  may  veto  any  reform.  Passing  by 
the  executive  and  judicial  functions,  which  are  im- 
portant, it  is  sufficient  to  note  here  that  in  matters 
of  legislation  the  Bundesrat,  or  rather  the  Chancellor, 
in  practice  initiates  and  makes  all  laws  with  merely 
the  consent  of  the  Reichstag.  In  this  respect  it  is 
the  reverse  of  the  English  system,  where  the  upper 
chamber  is  merely  a  revising  and  an  assenting  body. 
The  Reichstag  need  not  detain  us  long,  for  it  has 
little  power,  and  in  fact  was  not  created  primarily 
as  a  legislative  chamber,  but  rather  to  stimulate 
national  sentiment  and  enlist  popular  support 
against  the  local  and  dynastic  influences  which  have 
free  play  in  the  Bundesrat.  It  is  composed  of  397 
members  elected  for  a  term  of  five  years  by  a  direct 
and  secret  ballot,  each  member  being  elected  from 
a  single  district.  But  the  districts,  which  have  not 
been  changed  since  1871,  have  become  so  unequal 
in  population  that  this  fact  alone  would  make  the 
lower  house  undemocratic.  If  the  seats  were  re- 
distributed upon  the  basis  of  equal  population,  the 
liberal  element  of  Germany  would  now  control  the 
Reichstag.  But  that  control  alone,  be  it  remem- 
bered, would  not  make  Germany  a  democratic  state, 
because  a  democratic  government  is  one  in  which 
political  power,   by  whatever  agencies  it  may  be 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GERMANY  35 

exercised,  is  based  upon  the  popular  will  and  not 
upon  the  authority  of  an  Emperor,  a  Chancellor, 
or  a  Bundesrat,  none  of  whom  is  responsible  to  a 
popular  majority.  Thus  the  German  state  is  one 
in  which  the  policy  of  government  and  the  execution 
and  administration  of  that  policy  proceed  from 
above,  and  is  accountable  and  responsible,  not  to 
the  masses  for  whom  the  democracies  of  the  world 
have  been  fashioned,  but  to  the  favored  few  who 
now  seem  to  hold  in  the  hollow  of  their  hands  the 
destiny  of  seventy  million  subjects  and  who  threaten 
the  peace  of  the  world. 


CHAPTER  IV 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 

The  Great  War  has  created  an  unusual  interest  in 
the  government  of  Austria-Hungary.  As  the  chief 
ally  of  Germany  and  the  bridge  of  Prussian  ambition 
to  the  East,  her  defeat  and  recent  detachment  from 
Germany  mean  the  speedy  conclusion  of  the  war; 
and  her  fortunes  at  the  peace  conference  will  un- 
doubtedly become  the  subject  of  extensive  discussion 
and  negotiation.  A  brief  sketch  of  her  history 
and  political  institutions  seems,  therefore,  not  only 
justified  but  also  necessary  to  a  proper  understanding 
of  American  war  aims. 

The  Dual  Monarchy  is  composed  of  two  sovereign 
states,  the  Austrian  Empire  and  the  Hungarian 
Kingdom.  Each  state  has  its  own  Constitution, 
its  own  executive  and  legislative  departments,  its 
own  courts,  its  own  system  of  local  governments; 
and  to  a  large  extent  each  has  had  its  own  history. 
The  two  governments  have,  however,  been  united 
under,  a  common  ruler  since  1526;  when,  after  the 
defeat  of  the  Hungarians  by  the  Turks  at  the  battle 
of  Mohacs,  a  Hapsburg  prince  was  elected  to  the 
throne  of  Hungary. 

The  Ottoman  Turks,  it  will  be  remembered,  were, 

36 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  37 

under  a  great  ruler,  Suleiman  II  (1520-1566),  rapidly 
extending  their  sway  westward.  They  established 
themselves  in  Asia,  Asia  Minor,  Armenia,  Syria, 
Caucasia,  the  Euphrates  Valley,  and  the  shores 
of  the  Red  Sea.  They  conquered  the  entire  Bal- 
kan peninsula,  including  present  Greece,  Bulgaria, 
Hungary,  Bosnia,  and  Herzegovina.  The  last  two 
provinces  mentioned  they  held  until  the  Congress  of 
Berlin  in  1878,  when  Austria  was  given  administra- 
tive control  over  them;  and  indeed  Turkey  main- 
tained nominal  suzerainty  over  them  until  they 
were  formally  annexed  to  the  Austrian  Empire  in 
1908.  It  was  to  save  herself,  therefore,  from  the 
ferocious  Turk  that  Hungary  yielded  her  inde- 
pendence by  choosing  a  foreign  ruler.  But  the 
union  had  little  effect  upon  the  development  of 
Hungarian  institutions  or  the  style  of  her  own 
government.  We  shall,  therefore,  briefly  sketch  the 
history  of  each  state  separately  and  then  consider 
the  government. 

The  History  of  Austria 

Austria  was  originally  a  mark  or  border  county 
formed  by  Charlemagne  as  a  bulwark  of  the  Frankish 
Kingdom  against  the  Slavs.  During  the  ninth 
century  it  was  overrun  by  the  Moravians  (Slavs) 
and  Magyars  (Turanians)  and  all  traces  of  Frankish 
institutions  were  swept  away.  Not  until  Otto  the 
Great  conquered   the   Hungarians   in   955   and   re- 

2122(1 


38  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

organized  the  mark  did  a  continuous  development 
begin;  a  development,  that  is,  that  can  be  traced  to 
modern  times.  Leopold  of  Babenberg  was  the  first 
of  a  distinguished  family  to  govern  the  mark,  and 
from  the  beginning  of  his  rule  in  966  to  the  extinction 
of  Ins  line  in  1246  the  boundaries  were  extended, 
the  administration  consolidated,  and  an  orderly 
government  established.  In  1156  the  mark  was 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  duchy,  and  it  became 
practically  an  independent  state.  But  the  event 
most  important  to  the  student  of  present  politics 
was  the  advent  into  history  of  the  reigning  family 
of  to-day  —  the  House  of  Hapsburg.  Rudolph  of 
Hapsburg  became  German  King  and  Emperor  in 
1273,  and  three  years  later  he  compelled  Duke 
Ottokar,  who  then  ruled  over  Austria,  Styria,  and 
Carinthia,  to  give  up  the  three  dominions,  and 
Austria  then  became  the  center  of  Hapsburg 
interests.  In  1453  the  duchy  was  raised  to  an 
archduchy,  and  in  1512  Austrian  lands  became  one 
of  the  Imperial  Circles.  Six  years  later  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Austrian  diets  met  for  the  first 
time  at  Innsbruck. 

In  1519  Maximilian  I  was  succeeded  in  the  arch- 
duchy and  in  the  imperial  crown  by  his  grandson, 
known  in  history  as  Emperor  Charles  V,  who  was  a 
strong  supporter  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  a 
vigorous  opponent  of  Martin  Luther  and  the  Refor- 
mation.    Too  much  occupied  with  measures  to  pre- 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  39 

vent  the  Reformation,  the  Emperor  gave  his  brother 
Ferdinand  all  his  Austrian  possessions,  and  the 
latter  devoted  most  of  his  time  to  fighting  the  Turks 
and  to  securing  the  independence  of  Hungary. 
These  efforts  in  behalf  of  Hungary  led  to  the  union 
of  the  two  states  in  1526;  and  when  in  1556  Ferdi- 
nand also  succeeded  to  the  imperial  throne  the 
affairs  of  Austria  became  involved  with  those  of  the 
Empire,  to  the  detriment  of  the  former.  Not  until 
after  the  Thirty  Years'  War  did  Austria  receive  due 
attention  from  the  imperial  rulers. 

The  next  half  century  of  Austrian  history  was  one 
of  many  wars;  and  at  the  Peace  of  Karlowitz  in 
1699  she  gained  Slavonia,  Transylvania,  and  nearly 
all  of  Hungary,  thus  completing  the  territorial 
structure  of  the  Austrian  monarchy.  Then  followed 
a  period  of  internal  consolidation,  laying  the  founda- 
tion for  autocratic  power  which  was  carried  forward 
under  Maria  Theresa  and  continued  almost  unin- 
terruptedly till  1848.  A  strong  standing  army 
was  the  instrument  by  which  autocracy  was  main- 
tained and  the  spirit  of  liberty  and  democracy, 
released  by  the  French  Revolution,  beaten  down. 
Indeed  the  liberalizing  forces  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion affected  Austria  least  of  all  the  states  of  Europe. 
She  was  little  molested  by  the  ravages  of  war  during 
the  Napoleonic  period;  she  had,  moreover,  from 
1809  to  1848,  as  Prime  Minister,  one  of  the  most 
influential  and  commanding  personalities  of  Europe. 


40  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

A  thorough-going  reactionary,  opposed  to  revolu- 
tion from  below  and  reform  from  above,  Prince 
Metternich  was  the  actual  government  of  Austria. 
But  the  Revolution  of  1848  which  drove  Metternich 
from  power,  the  Crimean  War  (1854-1856),  which 
cost  Austria  allies  and  friends,  and  her  signal  defeat 
in  a  seven  weeks'  campaign  at  the  hands  of  the 
Germans  which  excluded  her  from  Germany  and 
Italy,  taught  the  Hapsburgs  to  pursue  a  more 
conciliatory  policy  toward  Hungary.  The  Con- 
stitution or  March  Laws,  as  they  were  called,  which 
the  liberal  Hungarians  had  drafted  and  put  into 
operation  for  a  few  months,  were  restored  in  Febru- 
ary, 1867,  and  to  the  Hungarian  Diet  was  left  the 
final  adoption  of  measures  of  compromise  with 
Austria.  The  general  result  of  the  Ausgleich  or 
Compromise  was  the  recognition  of  Hungary  as  a 
coordinate  part  of  the  Empire. 

Titles  of  Austrian  Rulers 

A  word  should  also  be  said  concerning  the  title  of 
the  Austrian  rulers.  We  have  seen  that  the  territory 
which  developed  into  the  present  empire  was  at 
first  a  buffer  county  called  a  mark.  Later  it  was 
elevated  into  a  duchy,  and  in  1453  into  an  arch- 
duchy, a  dignity  which  it  maintained  until  1804, 
when  the  Archduke  Francis  II  assumed  the  title  of 
Francis  I,  Emperor  of  Austria,  a  title  held  at  the 
present  day.     But  to  avoid  confusion  it  should  be 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  41 

remembered  that  since  the  coronation  of  Charle- 
magne, in  800,  as  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  this  title  was  a  thing  apart  from  the  title 
which  gave  immediate  control  of  a  particular  terri- 
tory or  state.  Thus  a  King  of  Saxony  or  a  ruler  of 
Luxemburg  might  also,  in  addition  to  the  title 
conferred  by  his  own  state,  bear  the  title  and  perform 
the  functions  of  Emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 
The  latter  title  had  been,  since  1273,  generally  held 
by  the  rulers  of  Austria. 

When,  therefore,  Francis  II  in  1804  changed  the 
title  of  Archduke  to  that  of  Emperor,  he  carried 
two  imperial  titles.  But  "coming  events  cast  their 
shadows  before."  He  feared  that  he  might  lose  the 
more  ancient  title  held  by  Charlemagne;  and  his 
fears  were  well  founded.  In  1805  the  South  German 
states  detached  themselves  from  the  empire,  formed 
the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine,  and  accepted  the 
protection  of  Napoleon;  and  on  August  6,  1806, 
Francis  I  voluntarily  relinquished  the  crown  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  which,  during  its  survival  of  a 
thousand  years,  was  with  few  exceptions  little  more 
than  an  empty  title. 

The  History  of  Hungary 

The  Magyars  or  Hungarians,  supposed  to  have 
come  from  Asia,  made  their  first  appearance  in  what 
is  now  called  Hungary  in  the  latter  part  of  the  ninth 
century.     They  occupied  the  valleys  of  the  Danube 


42  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

and  the  Theiss  between  the  Slavs  of  the  north  and 
the  Balkans  of  the  south,  terrorizing  the  German 
and  French  population  until  in  a  great  battle  at 
Lechfeld,  in  955,  they  were  defeated  by  the  Germans 
and  took  on  a  settled  mode  of  life.  The  reign  of 
St.  Stephen  (977-1038)  is  generally  regarded  as  the 
formative  period  of  their  history,  and  his  administra- 
tion promised  the  development  of  a  great  state; 
but  Hungary  had  throughout  her  early  history  few 
rulers  equal  to  the  task  of  laying  the  foundation  of 
an  orderly  and  stable  government.  The  weakness 
of  the  sovereigns  in  the  thirteenth  century,  feudalism, 
and  civil  discord  brought  to  the  front  a  powerful 
class  of  nobles  who  overshadowed  the  throne  and 
made  internal  consolidation  impossible. 

The  difficulties  from  without  were  no  less  trying. 
On  the  north  were  the  Germans  and  the  forces  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire;  on  the  east,  the  natives 
of  modern  Roumania;  on  the  south,  Greeks  and 
Slavs,  Serbs  and  Bulgars,  and  later,  the  Ottoman 
Turks.  On  all  sides  these  races  were  hostile,  so 
that  the  Magyars  were  continually  fighting,  some- 
times an  offensive  warfare  in  one  quarter,  or  beating 
back  an  invasion  from  another,  until  they  were 
driven  by  the  ferocious  Turks  to  seek  the  protection 
of  the  Hapsburg  monarchy  in  1526. 

The  chief  landmark  in  the  constitutional  develop- 
ment of  Hungary  is  the  Golden  Bull  of  1222,  a 
charter   granting   a   measure   of   liberty   which   has 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  43 

generally  been  regarded  as  the  foundation  of  Hun- 
garian liberty;  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  it 
was  granted  only  seven  years  after  the  famous 
English  Magna  Carta.  The  proximity  in  time  of 
these  two  charters  suggests  comparisons  that  would 
be  both  interesting  and  profitable  if  we  traced  the 
history  of  the  two  documents  in  detail.  But  we 
can  here  observe  only  one  characteristic  difference 
between  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the  Magyar. 

In  England  liberties  once  won  were  never  again 
lost.  In  Hungary,  on  the  other  hand,  during  the 
next  three  centuries  the  national  spirit  was  almost 
completely  annihilated.  After  the  union  with  the 
Hapsburg  monarchy  the  government  gradually  came 
under  Austrian  control,  and  the  Hungarian  Diet 
was  seldom  called  into  session;  and  after  1764,  not 
at  all.  Thus  the  era  of  the  French  Revolution 
found  Hungarian  liberty  and  self-government  all 
but  extinct. 

For  Austria,  it  must  be  admitted,  the  problem  of 
satisfying  and  at  the  same  time  governing  the  various 
races  in  her  dominions  was  not  an  easy  one.  The 
principle  of  nationality  —  the  erection  of  a  state  on 
the  basis  of  race  —  in  the  nineteenth  century  meant 
a  united  Germany,  a  united  Italy,  and  even  a  united 
Russia;  but  that  principle,  carried  to  its  logical 
conclusion  in  Austria,  meant  disintegration.  She 
had  many  races,  whose  national  aspirations  consti- 
tuted, then  as  now,  the  great  obstacle  to  unity. 


44  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

At  the  same  time  a  more  enlightened  policy  on 
the  part  of  Metternich  in  the  first  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  when  the  forces  of  freedom  were 
asserting    themselves    throughout    western    Europe 
and  in  many  of  the  British  possessions,  might  have 
spared  him  the  exile  which  awaited  him,  and  at  the 
same  time  won  for  him  the  confidence  and  coopera- 
tion of  the  Liberals.     England  learned  her  lesson  in 
the   American   Revolution   and   gave   her   colonies 
self-government.     This  is  all  Hungary  really  asked 
for;   but  when  the  liberal  movement  crept  into  the 
Austrian    dominions    and    the    liberal    spirits    took 
heart  and  under  the  leadership  of  Louis  Kossuth 
and  Francis  Deak  organized  a  liberal  party  having 
for   its   aim   the  reestablishinent   of   autonomy  for 
Hungary,  the  movement  was  crushed.     The  Revolu- 
tion of  1848  was  followed  by  the  reaction  of  1849. 
The  Liberals  in  Hungary  lost  everything  they  had 
been    fighting    for.     The    Austrian    autocracy    was 
again  in  control,  and  in  the  words  of  Professor  Ogg, 
"Vienna  became  once  more  the  seat  of  a  government 
whose  fundamental  objects  may  be  summarized  as 
(1)   to  Germanize  the  Magyars  and  Slavs,   (2)   to 
restrain  all  agitation  in  behalf  of  constitutionalism; 
and    (3)    to   prevent  freedom   of   thought   and   the 
establishment    of    a    free    press."     Hungary    was 
governed   by   German   officials   from   Vienna   more 
despotically  than  ever.     It  took  Austria  two  more 
decades    to    learn    imperfectly    what    France    had 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  45 

thoroughly  learned  a  half  century  earlier  and  what 
England  had  understood  a  century  before.  The 
agreement  finally  reached  between  Austria  and 
Hungary  was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  expressed 
in  the  Compromise  of  1867,  which  we  will  now 
consider. 

The  Compromise  of  1867 

The  joint  government  of  the  Dual  Monarchy  is 
no  exception  to  the  principle  adopted  by  all  states 
formed  by  a  union  of  separate  and  independent 
communities  —  the  principle  of  compromise.  All 
constitutions  rest  upon  the  basis  of  mutual  con- 
cessions of  varied  interests.  We  have  already  seen 
what  these  conflicting  interests  between  Austria 
and  Hungary  were,  and  they  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  The  plan  agreed  upon  determined  the  general 
character  of  the  government  from  that  day  to  this. 
The  whole  country  was  divided  into  two  parts: 
(1)  the  Empire  of  Austria,  including  the  archduchies 
of  Upper  and  Lower  Austria,  the  kingdoms  of 
Bohemia,  Galicia,  and  Dalmatia,  the  margravates  of 
Moravia  and  Istria,  the  duchies  of  Salzburg,  Styria, 
Carinthia,  Carniolia,  and  Bukowina,  the  county  of 
Tyrol,  and  the  city  of  Triest;  and  (2)  the  Kingdom 
of  Hungary,  including  Hungary  proper,  the  King- 
dom of  Croatia-Slavonia,  and  the  principality  of 
Transylvania.  Francis  Joseph  assumed  the  joint 
title  of  Emperor  of  Austria  and  King  of  Hungary. 


46  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

Each  of  the  two  states  was  to  manage  its  internal 
affairs,  and  provision  was  made  for  a  joint  govern- 
ment for  certain  affairs  in  which  the  states  had  a 
common  concern;  other  affairs  of  common  interest 
such  as  trade,  tariffs,  public  debt,  and  railways  were 
to  be  regulated  by  treaties  between  the  two  states, 
renewable  at  intervals  of  ten  years.  The  Com- 
promise also  provided  machinery  for  carrying  these 
plans  into  execution.  That  machinery  constitutes 
the  government  of  the  Dual  Monarchy  essentially 
as  it  is  to-day,  and  will  be  considered  in  the  next 
chapter  under  the  following  heads:  The  Common 
Government,  the  Government  of  Austria,  and  the 
Government  of  Hungary. 


CHAPTER  V 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:    GOVERNMENT  OF  TO-DAY 

The  Common  Government 

In  the  preceding  pages  attention  has  been  called 
to  the  fact  that  the  Dual  Monarchy  consists  of  two 
practically  independent  states,  each  equipped  with 
its  own  constitution,  ministry,  legislature,  judiciary, 
and  system  of  local  governments.  If  this  relation 
be  kept  in  mind  it  may  serve  to  prevent  confusing 
different  institutions  and  organs  of  government  to 
which  the  same  term  is  applied.  Thus,  for  example, 
reference  to  a  ministry  in  the  Dual  Monarchy  might 
mean  any  one  of  three  ministries,  namely,  the 
Austrian  ministry,  the  Hungarian  ministry,  or  the 
joint  ministry. 

The  machinery  of  the  joint  government  is  very 
simple,  and  the  scope  of  its  independent  action  is 
very  limited.  That  is  to  say,  the  joint  government 
does  not  have  power  to  deal  with  all  matters  in 
which  the  two  states  have  a  common  interest. 
The  Austro-Hungarian  government  is  peculiar  in 
this  respect,  and  the  limitations  thus  placed  upon  it 
give  rise   to  many  embarrassing   situations   which 

47 


48  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

would  not  occur  in  a  government  like  the  American 
where  all  powers  in  which  the  states  have  a  common 
interest  are  exercised  exclusively  by  the  central 
government. 

The  Austro-Hungarian  arrangement  provides  that 
the  joint  government  shall  have  exclusive  control  of 
only  a  few  of  the  many  interests  that  are  common 
to  both  states. 

The  special  machinery  of  the  joint  government 
consists  of  (1)  a  single  ruler  who  bears  the  title  of 
Emperor  of  Austria  and  King  of  Hungary;  (2)  a 
common  ministry  consisting  of  three  departments: 
foreign  affairs,  military  and  naval  affairs,  and 
finance  relating  to  common  affairs;  and  (3)  a  unique 
political  invention  called  the  "Delegations." 

The  legislative  power  of  the  joint  government  is 
exercised  by  the  parliaments  of  both  states  acting 
independently  of  each  other,  but  the  determination 
of  what  constitutes  common  affairs  and  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  money  to  be  voted  for  common 
services  are  determined  by  the  Delegations.  Of 
these  there  are  two,  each  composed  of  sixty  members 
representing  the  legislative  bodies  of  the  two  states, 
twenty  being  chosen  from  each  of  the  upper  houses 
and  forty  from  each  of  the  lower  houses.  All  mem- 
bers of  both  Delegations  are  elected  annually  and 
may  be  reelected.  The  Delegations  are  called  into 
session  by  the  Emperor-King  every  year  alternately 
at   Vienna   and   Budapest.     They   sit   in   separate 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY        49 

chambers  and  deliberate  independently  of  each 
other;  their  decisions  are  communicated  in  writing; 
and  if  after  three  interchanges  of  opinion  they  do  not 
agree,  both  Delegations  meet  together  and,  without 
discussion,  settle  the  matter  by  vote. 

The  Delegations  are  virtually  committees  repre- 
senting the  legislatures  of  the  two  states;  but  they 
are  clothed  with  some  powers  and  certain  responsi- 
bilities not  usually  vested  in  legislative  committees. 
The  joint  ministers  are  responsible  to  them;  they 
submit  all  projects  in  which  common  action  is 
necessary  to  the  legislatures  of  the  two  states;  they 
prefer  charges  of  impeachment  for  violations  of  the 
constitutional  law  pertaining  to  common  affairs, 
and  they  select  judges  to  try  cases  of  impeachment. 

The  chief  executive  power  of  the  joint  government 
reiides  in  the  monarch,  but  his  powers  as  Emperor- 
King  are  very  limited,  the  most  important  being 
the  appointment  of  the  joint  ministry  and  the 
command  of  the  common  army  and  navy.  But 
while  the  supreme  command  is  vested  in  the  joint 
monarch,  each  country  maintains  its  independent 
arrangements  for  raising  and  equipping  troops. 

Besides  the  permanent  political  connection  be- 
tween Austria  and  Hungary,  the  main  features  of 
which  are  here  described,  there  is  also  a  commercial 
union  which  is  not  permanent,  but  renewable  at 
intervals  of  ten  years.  This  part  of  the  union  is 
put  in  the  form  of  treaties  and  covers  customs 


50  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

legislation,  indirect  taxes,  regulations  concerning 
interstate  railways,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
system  of  defense.  The  proportion  which  each  state 
contributes  to  meet  the  joint  expenditures  is  also 
fixed  by  treaties.  In  1907  Austria's  share  was 
fixed  at  63.6  per  cent  and  Hungary's  at  36.4  per  cent. 
The  joint  government  also  exercises  control  over 
the  provinces  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  By  the 
Congress  of  Berlin  in  1878  the  military  occupation 
of  these  two  Turkish  provinces  was  intrusted  to 
Austria-Hungary,  and  in  1908  they  were  annexed  to 
the  Dual  Monarchy.  This  annexation  was  brought 
about  through  the  desire  of  Austro-Hungarian  capi- 
talists to  exploit  the  economic  resources  not  only 
of  the  two  provinces  but  also  of  Albania,  western 
Macedonia  and  Salonica  and  was  one  of  the  chief 
causes  of  the  Great  War.  In  1910  they  were  given 
a  constitution  providing  for  civil  government  with 
a  local  diet;  but  all  laws  passed  by  the  local  legis- 
lature must  have  the  assent  of  both  the  Austrian 
and  Hungarian  ministries. 

Government  of  Austria 

The  constitution  of  the  Austrian  Empire  consists 
of  a  series  of  diplomas,  patents,  statutes,  and  amend- 
ments, the  enactment  of  which  covered  a  period  of 
about  two  hundred  years;  the  first  of  the  more 
important  being  the  Pragmatic  Sanction  of  1713, 
and  the  last  a  series  of  five  fundamental  laws  bearing 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY        51 

the  date  December  21,  1867,  when  the  government 
was  put  essentially  into  the  form  which  it  has  to-day. 
Since  the  Compromise  of  1867  a  number  of  amend- 
ments have  been  made,  the  most  important  of  the 
more  recent  ones  being  that  of  1907  which  redis- 
tributed the  seats  in  the  lower  chamber  and  extended 
the  suffrage. 

The  fundamental  laws  as  finally  revised  provide 
for  a  limited  monarchy  with  a  responsible  ministry, 
a  legislative  body  consisting  of  two  chambers,  and  a 
system  of  local  self-government  within  each  of  the 
seventeen  states  that  make  up  the  Empire.  The 
form  of  government  may  be  changed  by  the  same 
method  employed  in  ordinary  legislation,  except 
that  an  amendment  requires  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
both  houses  instead  of  a  simple  majority. 

The  Emperor  is  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
state,  and  all  powers  not  expressly  vested  elsewhere 
remain  with  him.  An  unusual  provision  in  the 
fundamental  law  gives  the  Emperor  the  power  of 
issuing  ordinances  having  the  force  of  law  if  an 
urgent  situation  demands  it  and  the  legislature  is 
not  at  the  time  in  session.  The  only  limitation 
placed  upon  the  Emperor's  absolute  authority  in 
legislative  matters  in  such  emergencies  is  the  proviso 
that  such  ordinances  shall  be  signed  by  all  the 
ministers  and  that  they  shall  cease  to  be  binding 
if  not  presented  to,  and  approved  by,  the  legislature 
at  the  next  succeeding  session.     The  ministers  are, 


52  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

however,  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  and  in  practice 
this  power  has  frequently  been  exercised  and  the 
government  made  to  run  year  after  year  upon  the 
sole  authority  of  the  executive  department.  Aside 
from  the  powers  conferred  by  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution,  the  Emperor  has  those  powers  common 
to  rulers  of  continental  Europe. 

The  organization,  powers,  and  duties  of  the 
ministers  are  in  general  also  similar  to  those  in  the 
other  countries  of  the  Continent  which  have  already 
been  described.  Ministers  are  nominally  responsible 
to  the  Reichsrat,  but  are  appointed  and  dismissed 
by  the  Emperor;  and,  under  the  leadership  of  the 
premier,  they  serve  as  the  Emperor's  councillors, 
execute  his  will,  and  administer  the  affairs  of  their 
respective  departments.  Though  nominally  re- 
sponsible to  the  Reichsrat,  in  practice  they  are  more 
dependent  upon  the  Emperor  than  upon  Parliament. 

In  theory  Austria  has  a  parliamentary  system  of 
government  similar  to  that  of  England,  but  on 
account  of  the  numerous  and  sharp  racial  divisions 
in  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  the  Emperor  has 
little  difficulty  in  playing  off  parties  against  one 
another  so  as  to  defeat  representative  and  responsible 
government.  In  justice  to  the  government,  how- 
ever, it  should  be  said  that  the  problem  of  governing 
by  the  consent  of  a  majority  is  at  best  a  difficult 
one,  as  we  shall  see  when  we  come  later  to  consider 
the  racial  question  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY         53 

The  Reichsrat  or  Parliament  consists  of  an  upper 
and  a  lower  house.  The  upper  house  or  House  of 
Lords  is  entirely  non-elective.  The  total  number 
varies  from  time  to  time,  but  it  is  composed  of 
princes  of  the  imperial  family,  landed  nobles  nomi- 
nated by  the  Emperor,  archbishops,  bishops,  and 
members  appointed  by  the  Emperor  for  life  from 
men  who  have  distinguished  themselves  in  art  or 
science  or  have  rendered  important  services  to  the 
state.  The  number  of  the  last-mentioned  class  was 
fixed  by  law  in  1907  at  not  less  than  150  nor  more 
than  170. 

The  House  of  Representatives  has  a  total  member- 
ship of  516,  elected  for  a  term  of  six  years  by  uni- 
versal, equal,  and  direct  suffrage.  All  male  citizens 
over  twenty-four  years  of  age  who  have  resided  at 
least  one  year  in  the  voting  precinct  are  allowed  to 
vote.  The  electoral  districts  are,  so  far  as  possible, 
each  composed  of  a  uniform  nationality,  and  as  a 
rule  one  member  is  elected  from  each  district,  but 
in  thirty-six  districts  of  Galicia  two  members  are 
elected  from  each  district.  In  these  districts,  how- 
ever, each  elector  is  allowed  but  one  vote,  and  the 
candidate  having  the  largest  number  of  votes 
recorded  is  first  deputy,  while  the  one  receiving  the 
next  largest  number  is  regarded  as  second  deputy. 
In  Moravia  the  voting  population  is  divided  accord- 
ing to  nationality  so  that  German  and  Bohemian 
electors,  for  example,  choose  their  representatives 


54  DEMOCRACY  iw.  AUTOCRACY 

separately.  In  eight  of  the  Austrian  provinces 
voting  is  compulsory.  The  Emperor  nominates  the 
president  and  vice-president  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
while  the  House  of  Representatives  elects  its  own 
officials. 

In  the  earlier  pages  of  this  volume  the  parlia- 
mentary system  of  government  is  described,  and 
England  is  cited  as  the  most  conspicuous  example 
not  only  of  the  responsible  parliamentary  system, 
but  also  as  the  best  example  of  a  party  government 
or  a  government  by  a  majority  of  the  governed. 

Such  a  government  obviously  can  be  successfully 
operated  only  when  a  single  party  controls  a  ma- 
jority in  parliament  or  where  a  number  of  parties 
unite  and  work  together  harmoniously  to  attain  a 
common  purpose  or  end.  Unless  such  a  union  can 
be  effected,  neither  a  responsible  nor  a  democratic 
government  is  possible.  In  Austria  the  important 
question  of  responsibility  at  once  suggests  the  still 
more  important  question  —  Responsible  to  which 
party?  The  answer  to  this  question  may  best  be 
given  in  concrete  form  by  calling  attention  to  the 
number  of  parties  and  the  membership  of  each  in 
the  lower  chamber  in  1911.  There  were  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  at  that  time  100  German 
Nationalists,  73  (German)  Christian  Socialists,  49 
German  Social  Democrats,  84  United  Bohemian 
Club,  25  Bohemian  Social  Democrats,  28  Ukraine 
Union,    70   Poles,   9   Polish   Social   Democrats,   27 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY        55 

Croatio-Slavonian  Club,  7  Dalmatians,  27  Unio- 
latina,  and  23  Independents.  Under  such  conditions 
a  more  enlightened  statesmanship  than  Austrian 
premiers  have  hitherto  shown  will  be  necessary  to 
form  a  government  "where  the  common  sense  of 
most  shall  keep  a  fretful  realm  in  awe." 

Provincial  and  Local  Government 

Since  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  the  question 
of  the  break-up  or  dismemberment  of  the  Dual 
Monarchy  has  received  much  attention  from  news- 
papers; and  even  the  chancelleries  of  the  warring 
powers  have  seriously  discussed  it,  and  in  some 
instances  have  practically  committed  their  states  to 
the  policy  of  dismemberment  as  a  condition  of 
peace.  The  wisdom  of  such  a  policy  does  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  these  pages,  but  since  the  question 
is  much  talked  about  it  seems  advisable  to  call 
attention  to  the  agencies  already  at  hand  whereby 
the  Austrian  peoples  might,  so  far  as  mechanism  is 
concerned,  now  be  governed  entirely  by  seventeen 
independent  states  without  the  interference  of  the 
imperial  government. 

Each  of  the  seventeen  provinces  has  all  of  the 
machinery  necessary  for  carrying  on  all  the  func- 
tions of  government;  each  has  a  Diet  with  a  single 
chamber  made  up  of  representatives  from  six 
different  classes;  namely,  the  church,  the  uni- 
versities, the  great  estates,  towns,  boards  of  com- 


56  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

merce  and  industries,  and  rural  communes.  The 
suffrage  qualifications  vary  in  different  provinces 
as  do  also  the  number  of  representatives  in  the 
different  diets.  The  latter  range  from  242  in  Bo- 
hemia to  26  in  Vorarlberg. 

The  Diet  controls  all  local  bodies,  has  charge  of 
local  taxation,  educational,  ecclesiastical,  and  chari- 
table institutions,  and  public  works.  In  general  the 
Diet  has  all  powers  not  expressly  reserved  to  the 
imperial  government.  The  executive  powers  are 
exercised  by  a  provincial  council  consisting  of  the 
president  of  the  Diet,  who  is  nominated  by  the 
Emperor  and  ex-officio  chairman,  and  from  four  to 
eight  members  variously  elected  within  the  province. 
The  provinces  are  also  subdivided  into  districts  and 
communes,  each  with  elective  bodies  for  legislative 
purposes  and  committees  selected  from  these  bodies 
to  administer  local  affairs. 

The  Government  of  Hungary 

The  Constitution  of  Hungary  proper  and  Croatia- 
Slavonia  is  of  very  ancient  origin,  dating  from  the 
occupation  of  the  Magyars  about  891.  The  first 
king,  St.  Stephen,  was  crowned  in  the  year  1000, 
and  the  first  constitutional  code  is  the  Bulla  Aurea 
of  King  Andrew  II,  granted  in  1222.  But  since  the 
union  with  Austria  in  1526,  the  suppression  of  the 
Magyars  had  been  a  cardinal  point  in  Hapsburg 
policy,  and  consequently  there  is  little  evidence  of 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY         57 

constitutional  development  in  Hungary  until  the 
Revolution  of  1848.  The  Constitution  drafted  at 
that  time,  and  suspended  the  following  year,  was 
restored  in  its  essentials  in  1867  and  forms  the 
general  plan  of  the  central  government  of  Hungary 

to-day. 

The  Austrian  Emperor  is  King  of  Hungary,  and 
the  fundamental  law  provides  that  "His  Majesty 
shall  exercise  the  executive  power  in  conformity 
with  law,  through  the  independent  Hungarian 
ministry,  and  no  ordinance,  order,  or  appointment 
shall  have  force  unless  it  is  countersigned  by  one 
of  the  ministers  residing  at  Budapest."  The  Min- 
istry which  is  responsible  to  Parliament  now  consists 
of  ten  heads  of  departments  and  two  members  with- 
out portfolios.  The  powers  and  functions  of  the 
Hungarian  ministers  are  in  general  so  similar  to 
those  of  other  governments  of  the  responsible  type 
that  they  need  not  be  described  here. 

The  legislative  power  is  vested  in  the  Hungarian 
Parliament  which  consists  of  two  houses  —  the 
Table  of  Magnates  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
The  Magnates  is  composed  of  Hungarian  princes  and 
a  limited  number  of  archdukes,  landed  proprietors, 
archbishops,  bishops,  and  other  deputies  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  and  Greek  churches,  lay  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Protestant  confessions,  and  life 
peers  appointed  by  the  Crown.  The  Chamber  of 
Deputies  is  composed  of  453  members  elected  by 


58  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

male  suffrage  restricted  by  the  condition  of  a  small 
direct  tax  on  land,  home,  or  income,  varying  with 
occupation.  But  certain  classes  belonging  to  scien- 
tific, learned,  and  other  professions  are  entitled  to 
vote  without  other  qualifications. 

Provincial  and  Local  Government 

While  the  Magyar  element  in  Hungary  has  con- 
sistently fought  against  the  interference  of  Austria 
in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Dual  Monarchy,  it  has 
been  less  generous  than  Austria  in  the  matter  of 
granting  local  self-government  to  the  political  sub- 
divisions within  the  state.  Dalmatia  was  united 
to  Hungary  proper  in  the  twelfth  century,  and 
Transylvania,  which  had  a  considerable  measure  of 
local  autonomy,  was  united  to  the  Kingdom  in 
1848.  The  provinces  of  Croatia  and  Slavonia  are, 
in  matters  pertaining  to  war,  trade,  and  finance,  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  other  parts  of  the  state; 
but  in  religion,  education,  justice,  and  local  affairs 
generally,  they  have  local  autonomy.  These  two 
provinces  together  constitute  a  unit  and  have  a 
Diet  with  90  members  elected  for  five  years; 
they  have  40  members  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
and  3  in  the  House  of  Magnates.  They  also  have 
their  own  ministry  consisting  of  three  departments, 
but  at  the  head  of  the  whole  ministry  is  the  Ban, 
a  chief  executive,  who  is  appointed  by  the  Crown. 
In    Hungary    proper    the    principal    unit    for    local 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY        59 

government  is  the  county,  with  a  council,  presided 
over  by  an  official  appointed  by  the  Crown,  and  a 
committee  forming  the  local  executive.  Munici- 
palities are  organized  and  governed  upon  the  same 
general  principles  as  those  of  the  counties. 

The  Problem  of  Races  in  the  Dual  Monarchy 

Having  briefly  described  the  relations  of  the  com- 
plex mechanism  of  the  government  of  the  Dual 
Monarchy  —  the  division  into  two  parts,  the  sub- 
division of  these  parts  into  provinces  and  local  units, 
the  governmental  relation  of  these  units  to  each 
state  or  province,  the  relation  of  these  in  turn  to 
Empire  or  Kingdom,  and  the  final  union  of  the  latter 
through  a  common  government  —  we  are  prepared 
to  appreciate  some  of  the  problems  of  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  government  to  which  the  World  War 
has  called  special  attention  and  in  which  our  own 
government  has  frequently  expressed  an  interest. 
"Dismemberment  of  the  Empire,"  "self-determina- 
tion," "Bohemian  independence,"  the  "Hungarian 
revolt,"  the  "Magyars,"  the  "Czecho-Slovaks"  — 
all  are  current  phrases,  all  are  problems  —  world 
problems  —  and  the  Dual  Monarchy  must  face 
them  all. 

But  no  attempt  to  understand  the  problems  of 
Austria-Hungary  can  meet  with  success  that  does 
not  take  account  of  two  important  facts  —  its 
geography  and  its  races.     These  are  the  constant 


60  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

factors  which  must  always  be  kept  in  mind.  Situ- 
ated in  the  center  of  Europe,  with  an  irregular 
boundary  line,  with  a  thin  arm  extending  west  to 
Lake  Constance  and  the  Rhine,  a  projection  as  far 
north  as  Saxony,  an  elbow  thrust  into  the  interior  of 
Russia  beyond  the  Vistula  and  the  Dniester,  and  a 
long  strip  extending  far  south  along  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  Adriatic,  the  problem  of  defense  is  a  serious 
one.  There  are  eight  foreign  states  on  the  land 
frontier  and  four  hundred  miles  of  coastline  furnish- 
ing avenues  of  attack  from  without. 

Her  internal  racial  diversities  are  still  more 
threatening.  The  ruling  family  is  German,  and 
much  of  her  civilization  and  many  of  her  institu- 
tions bear  the  Teutonic  impress.  But  out  of  a 
total  population  of  51,000,000  in  1910,  there  were 
only  12,000,000  Germans,  while  the  non-Teutons 
numbered  39,000,000,  of  whom  10,000,000  were 
Magyars,  4,000,000  Latins,  and  24,250,000  Slavs. 
But  the  Slavs  were  separated  geographically  and 
divided  by  language,  customs  and  religion.1  These 
divisions  have  enabled  the  German  minority  to 
govern  the  country  and  to  check  the  reform  move- 
ments of  the  last  hundred  years;  they  have  enabled 
the  Hapsburgs  to  play  off  one  party  against  another 
and  to  hold  the  balance  of  power,  which  has  in- 

1  Distribution  of  population  by  states  in  1910  was  as  follows:  Austria, 
28,571,934;  Hungary,  20,744,744;  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  1,898,044;  a 
total  of  51,215,727. 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY         61 

variably  been  placed  in  the  scale  of  reaction.  It 
was  this  division  of  races  which  enabled  the  Haps- 
burgs  to  defeat  the  liberal  Austrian  and  Hungarian 
constitutions  in  1848;  it  defeated  the  Slavic  move- 
ment in  Bohemia  in  the  same  year;  and  the  Magyars 
applied  the  same  principle  to  defeat  the  Croatio- 
Slavonic  demands  in  Hungary;  the  Czechs  came 
into  conflict  with  the  Pan-Germans  of  Austria  and 
the  Slovaks  into  conflict  with  the  Hungarian  revolu- 
tionists under  Kossuth.  It  would  therefore  be  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  playing  off  one  party  against 
another  was  a  prerogative  of  any  single  nationality; 
all  have  adopted  the  same  methods,  but  of  course 
not  always  to  the  attainment  of  the  same  ends. 
The  Liberals,  in  so  far  as  they  have  represented 
national  policies,  have  generally  stood  for  a  greater 
degree  of  local  self-government  and  for  equal  oppor- 
tunities for  all,  while  the  Conservatives  have 
generally  favored  privileges,  and  the  status  quo  ante, 
in  a  word  —  reaction. 

But  political  differences,  such  as  those  just  men- 
tioned, need  not  and  would  not  give  the  government 
serious  concern.  The  real  basic  problem  is,  and  has 
always  been,  the  problem  of  races  —  a  social  rather 
than  a  political  problem;  and  the  racial  and  social 
aspirations  have  been  reflected  in  the  form  of 
government  and  in  nearly  all  of  the  political  and 
social  institutions.  The  Compromise  of  1867  was 
simply  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  different  nation- 


62  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

alities  to  live  together  and  tolerate  each  other  for 
the  time  being.  It  was  merely  a  political  truce 
which  satisfied  none  of  the  races  or  parties  and 
which  was  sure  to  be  broken  at  the  first  moment 
in  which  any  one  of  the  parties  to  the  agreement 
could  gain  an  advantage,  recover  a  lost  right,  or  win 
a  new  privilege.  The  Great  War  furnished  the 
moment,  and  the  Czecho-Slovaks  were  the  parties 
which  struck  for  the  recovery  of  lost  rights  and  the 
attainment  of  new  privileges  in  a  wider  liberty. 
Their  movement  is  so  important  that  it  demands  a 
word  of  explanation. 

The  Czecho-Slovaks 

Immediately  after  the  declaration  of  War,  the 
Czecho-Slovaks  arraigned  themselves  on  the  side  of 
the  Allies  and  against  Austria-Hungary.  Czecho- 
slovak soldiers  in  the  Austrian  army  refused  to 
fight,  surrendered  to  the  enemy  in  large  numbers, 
and  even  formed  legions  in  the  Allied  armies.  Re- 
pressive measures  on  the  part  of  Austria  seemed  only 
to  intensify  opposition  and  to  organize  it.  A 
Czecho-Slovak  National  Council  was  formed,  which 
elected  Professor  Thomas  G.  Masaryk  as  president. 
Under  his  able  leadership  this  council,  which  was 
really  a  provisional  government,  organized  Czech 
and  Slovak  colonies  in  the  allied  and  neutral  coun- 
tries; and  on  November  14,  1915,  it  declared  the 
Hapsburgs  deposed  from   the  throne  of  Bohemia. 


GOVERNMENT  OF  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY         63 

The  leaders  of  the  movement  take  the  position  that 
the  formation  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  monarchy 
of  which  they  became  a  part  was  created  by  their 
express  agreement,  that  the  agreement  has  been 
violated,  that  the  union  was  formed  primarily  to 
meet  the  danger  of  Turkish  invasion,  and  since  that 
danger  no  longer  exists,  there  is  no  longer  reason 
for  its  continuance. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  took  an 
important,  though  not  unprecedented,  step  when 
on  September  2,  1918,  it  declared  "that  a  state  of 
belligerency  exists  between  the  Czecho-Slovaks  thus 
organized  and  the  German  and  Austro-Hungarian 
Empires."  It  also  recognized  the  Czecho-Slovak 
National  Council,  with  headquarters  at  Washington, 
"as  a  de  facto  belligerent  Government,  clothed  with 
proper  authority  to  direct  the  military  and  political 
affairs  of  the  Czecho-Slovaks,"  and  expressed  its 
willingness  "to  enter  formally  into  relations  with  the 
de  facto  government  thus  recognized,  for  the  purpose 
of  prosecuting  the  war  against  the  common  enemy." 
France,  Great  Britain,  and  Italy  had  already 
recognized  the  Czecho-Slovak  National  Council  and 
the  Czecho-Slovak  army. 

The  Czechs  inhabit  Bohemia,  Moravia,  and 
Austrian  Silesia,  which  under  the  present  constitu- 
tion are  parts  of  the  Austrian  Empire.  The  Slovaks 
live  in  the  northern  part  of  Hungary  adjoining  the 
Czechs  on  the  east  and  southeast.     On  the  basis  of 


64  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

the  present  movement  the  boundaries  of  the  new 
state  will  embrace  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Silesia,  with 
their  historic  boundaries,  and  the  northern  part  of 
Hungary  —  an  area  four  times  as  large  as  that  of 
Belgium  and  including  a  population  of  about 
12,000,000.  Dr.  Masaryk,  the  President  of  the 
National  Council,  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  a 
constitution  would  be  adopted  that  would  "provide 
for  a  President  and  two  legislative  chambers,  a 
Senate  and  a  House  of  Representatives,"  similar  to 
that  of  the  United  States,  and  also  an  "elaborate 
system  of  local  self-government,  as  a  means  of 
insuring  a  democracy  that  is  not  one  in  form  alone." 
Several  important  Pan-Slavic  Congresses  have 
recently  been  held  to  further  the  movement  for 
absolute  independence  from  Austria;  and  at  the 
present  writing  (November,  1918),  there  are  many 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  Czecho-Slovak  move- 
ment will  express  itself  in  an  independent  state. 
Meantime  the  Slavs  of  other  provinces  and  states 
both  north  and  south  of  the  Czecho-Slavs  are  or- 
ganizing for  independence  and  the  Hungarians  are 
threatening  to  bring  about  a  complete  separation 
from  Austria.  To  what  extent  the  present  race 
movements  in  favor  of  self-determination  and  in- 
dependence will  be  realized  is  known  only  to  the 
gods;  but  that  the  Austro-Hungarian  Empire  of 
the  present  will  not  be  the  Empire  of  the  future,  is 
a  foregone  conclusion. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM 

The  History  of  Belgium,  1579-191Jf 

The  territory  now  called  Belgium  was  once  the 
southern  portion  of  the  Netherlands.  Its  history 
as  a  separate  state  may  be  said  to  begin  in  1579, 
when  the  southern  Netherlands  broke  away  from 
the  northern  provinces  and  declared  their  loyalty 
to  the  Spanish  King.  From  that  time  till  the  fall 
of  Napoleon,  Belgium  was  governed  successively 
by  Spain,  Austria,  and  France.  In  1815  the  Powers 
at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  united  it  with  Holland, 
and  both  states  were  governed  by  the  Prince  of 
Orange,  who  then  took  the  title  of  King  William  I. 

The  government  under  the  union,  however,  was 
more  favorable  to  the  Dutch  than  to  the  Belgian 
provinces.  Dutch,  the  language  of  Holland,  was 
made  the  official  language,  though  French  was 
quite  generally  spoken  in  all  of  the  Belgian  provinces. 
The  Dutch  were  generally  Protestants;  the  Belgians, 
Catholics.  In  fact,  the  two  sections  had  for  130 
years  passed  through  totally  different  experiences 
and  had  drifted  apart  from  each  other  in  character, 

65 


66  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

habits,  and  ideas;  and  the  Belgians,  opposed  to  the 
union  from  the  start,  were  each  year  becoming  more 
dissatisfied. 

When  the  news  of  the  success  of  the  July  revolu- 
tion at  Paris  reached  Brussels,  riots  broke  out  and 
the  Belgians  felt  that  the  opportune  moment  was 
at  hand.  They  rose  in  revolt  and  declared  their 
independence. 

A  Constitution  was  adopted  February  7,  1831, 
which  remained  practically  unchanged  for  over 
sixty  years.  It  is  the  oldest  written  constitution 
still  in  force  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  except  the 
Constitution  of  the  Dutch;  and  it  has  generally 
commanded  the  admiration  of  students  of  govern- 
ment. The  success  of  its  framers  was  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  structure  they  reared  had  as  its  basis 
very  little  abstract  theory  and  very  much  sound 
common  sense  and  long-continued  usage.  It  rested 
upon  the  charters  and  privileges  of  the  different 
provinces  and  cities,  which  dated  from  the  Middle 
Ages  and  which  had  never  been  forgotten  or  revoked, 
even  by  Spanish  and  Austrian  oppression.  There 
was  but  one  feature  in  the  document  which  gave 
the  liberals  concern;  suffrage  rested  on  a  narrow 
basis.  But  a  movement  gradually  set  in  to  bring 
about  a  reform.  In  1886  socialism  had  become  an 
important  factor  in  politics,  and  a  reform  movement 
was  begun  which  resulted  in  1893  in  a  revision  of 
the  constitution,  granting  universal  male  suffrage. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  67 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  in  July,  1914, 
Germany,  contrary  to  a  promise  to  guarantee  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium,  and  contrary  to  international 
law,  invaded  Belgium,  and  on  August  20  occupied 
Brussels;   October  9th  the  Germans  were  in  posses- 
sion of  Antwerp,  and  on  the  15th  of  the  same  month 
they   occupied    Ostend.     The   Belgian   government 
withdrew  to  La  Havre,  France,  where  it  was  assured 
protection  and  the  right  to  exercise  all  sovereign 
powers.     Later  Germany  took  over  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  occupied  territory,  but  the  democracies 
of   the    world    assured    Belgium    that    they    would 
consider    no    peace    that    did    not    unconditionally 
restore  to  the  Belgians  their  territory,  sovereignty, 
freedom,  and  independence,  and  indemnity  for  the 
great  wrong  inflicted  upon  an  innocent  government. 
The  events  of  August,  1914,  and  their  sequel  have 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  world  to  Belgium; 
and   the   heroic   behavior    of    its    people   has    won 
universal  admiration.     Yet  history  shows  that  the 
Belgians    were    a    people    possessing    remarkable 
qualities  long  before  the  Great  War  came  to  remind 
us   of   them.     Their   nobility  headed   the  crusades 
and  their  common  people  established  the  first  free 
city  life  north  of  the  Alps.     In  the  present  ordeal 
they  have  acted  greatly  because  they  have  greatness 
in  them;    and  their  government  is  worthy  of  study 
not  merely  because  the  first  assault  upon  liberty 
was  checked  on  Belgian  soil,  but  because  the  Belgian 


68  DEMOCRACY  w.  AUTOCRACY 

government  is  one  of  the  best  types  of  the  small 
state. 

Government 

Belgium  has  a  constitutional,  responsible,  and 
parliamentary  system  of  government.  In  no  coun- 
try is  the  liberty  of  the  citizen  better  guaranteed, 
and  the  Constitution  throughout  breathes  the  spirit 
of  a  free  people.  Not  satisfied  with  the  usual 
provisions  concerning  freedom  of  speech,  press, 
worship,  petition,  and  assembly,  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  seemed  determined  that  public  opinion 
should  under  no  circumstances  be  hampered  in  its 
free  development  by  providing  that  "no  censorship 
shall  ever  be  established."  The  Constitution  was 
drafted  by  a  National  Assembly  chosen  for  that 
purpose,  but  it  may  be  amended  by  a  method  rather 
simple;  when  the  legislature  decides  that  an  amend- 
ment is  advisable,  both  houses  are  dissolved  and  a 
new  election  is  called.  If  each  house  of  the  newly 
elected  Congress  by  a  two-thirds  vote  favors  the 
amendment,  and  it  has  the  approval  of  the  King,  it 
becomes  a  part  of  the  Constitution. 

While  Belgium  has  a  King  and  may  properly  be 
called  a  constitutional  monarchy,  it  has  in  the  best 
sense  a  government  of  laws  and  not  of  men.  The 
legislative  power  is  vested  in  a  King,  a  House  of 
Representatives,  and  a  Senate.  The  members  of 
the  House  are  chosen  directly  by  the  people  and  are 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  69 

apportioned  among  the  provinces  according  to 
population.  They  are  elected,  moreover,  by  a 
system  of  proportional  representation  through  which 
the  minority  parties  are  represented  in  the  lower 
House  in  proportion  to  the  popular  vote  cast  at  the 
election.  The  term  of  office  is  four  years,  and  one 
half  of  the  members  are  elected  every  two  years. 

The  suffrage  qualifications  are  interesting.  Every 
male  citizen  twenty  five  years  of  age,  who  has  been 
a  resident  of  the  commune  for  one  year,  has  one 
vote.  If  he  is  a  married  man  or  widower  and  thirty 
five  years  of  age  and  pays  five  francs  in  taxes,  he 
has  two  votes.  If  he  is  twenty  five  years  of  age 
and  owns  real  estate  worth  2000  francs,  or  has  an 
income  representing  a  corresponding  value,  or  owns 
government  securities  paying  an  interest  of  100 
francs,  or  holds  a  certificate  from  an  educational 
institution  of  the  higher  grade,  or  is  a  public  office 
holder,  he  has  three  votes.  But  no  one  has  more 
than  three  votes.     Moreover,  voting  is  obligatory. 

The  Senate  is  composed  of  120  members  elected 
for  eight  years,  partly  directly  and  partly  indirectly. 
Twenty-seven  of  the  members  are  now  elected  by 
the  provincial  councils;  the  remaining  number, 
which  is  equal  to  one  half  the  number  of  representa- 
tives, is  elected  by  a  direct  popular  vote  by  the 
same  method  employed  in  the  election  of  members 
to  the  lower  house. 

The  executive  power  is  nominally  exercised  by 


70  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

the  King,  but  he  is  bound  by  the  Constitution, 
which  provides  that  "he  shall  have  no  other  powers 
than  those  which  the  Constitution  and  the  special 
laws  under  the  Constitution  confer  upon  him." 
The  executive  powers  are  actually  exercised  by  a 
council  of  ministers  who  together  with  a  number  of 
ministers  without  portfolios,  form  the  Council  of 
State,  an  advisory  body  convened  by  the  Crown  as 
occasion  requires.  All  ministers  are  appointed,  and 
may  be  dismissed,  by  the  King.  They  are  nearly 
always  members  of  the  Senate  or  House,  with  the 
right  to  vote  only  if  they  are  members.  The  minis- 
ters are  always  party  leaders,  and  Belgium  has  there- 
fore a  party  government.  There  have  always  been 
since  1830  at  least  two  political  parties,  the  Catho- 
lics and  Liberals,  and  all  ministries  before  the  out- 
break of  the  Great  War  have  represented  one  of 
these  parties  or  a  coalition  of  both. 

For  the  first  fifteen  years  under  the  present  Con- 
stitution the  country  was  governed  by  a  coalition 
ministry.  But  in  1846  the  parties  separated  and 
the  government  has  alternated  between  Liberals 
and  Catholics.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  War  in 
1914,  the  Catholic  ministry,  then  in  power,  made 
itself  into  a  coalition  ministry  by  admitting  the 
leaders  of  the  Liberals  and  Socialists.  The  division 
between  the  Catholic  and  Liberal  parties  has  always 
been  and  still  is  primarily  religious.  The  election 
of  1894  —  the  first  after  the  extension  of  the  franchise 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  71 

—  gave  the  Socialists  for  the  first  time  a  place  in 
Parliament.  They  occupied  twenty-nine  seats,  and 
though  their  number  in  Parliament  is  comparatively 
small,  they  have  a  remarkable  band  of  intellectual 
leaders,  and  through  the  force  of  their  ideas  they 
have  accomplished  much  for  social  reform. 

The  Belgian  government  is  extremely  sensitive  to 
popular  reaction;  there  is  nothing  whatever  either 
in  its  fundamental  law  or  in  its  practice  and  spirit 
that  tolerates  autocracy.  Whatever  may  be  the 
motives  which  underlie  parties  and  impel  party 
leaders,  there  is  no  concession  or  appeal  to  royalty. 
The  present  King  is  beloved  because  he  is  popular, 
not  because  he  belongs  to  a  privileged  class.  In 
fact,  in  no  other  government  is  executive  responsi- 
bility to  the  popular  will  so  safeguarded  as  in 
Belgium.  The  King  may  not  even  pardon  a  minister 
who  is  sentenced  by  a  court  except  upon  request  of 
the  two  houses  of  Parliament,  and  "no  decree  of  the 
King  shall  take  effect  unless  it  is  countersigned  by  a 
minister  who,  by  that  act  alone,  renders  himself 
responsible  for  it."  Nor  shall  any  "verbal  or 
written  order  of  the  King  relieve  a  minister  of 
responsibility."  Subject  to  these  restrictions,  the 
King  calls  and  dismisses  Parliament,  and  appoints 
numerous  officials  in  the  administrative  and  foreign 
services.  He  is  commander-in-chief  of  the  army 
and  navy,  declares  war,  concludes  peace,  and  makes 
treaties,  but  certain  treaties  must  be  approved  by 


72  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

both  houses.  He  promulgates  all  laws  and  issues 
all  regulations  necessary  for  the  execution  of  the 
will  of  Parliament.  In  law  he  has  the  veto  power; 
in  practice  he  does  not  exercise  it,  and  for  obvious 
reasons,  for  if  he  did,  the  executive  would  not  be 
responsible  to  the  people  nor  to  the  popular  branch 
of  government. 

Justice 

The  Belgians  claim  to  possess  an  almost  perfect 
code,  and  indeed  their  judicial  system  has  received 
so  much  praise  from  foreign  critics  that  a  word 
concerning  the  administration  of  justice  may  not 
be  out  of  place  even  in  a  brief  outline  of  government. 
The  courts  of  law,  beginning  with  the  lowest,  are: 
justice  of  the  peace,  one  for  each  of  the  342  cantons; 
next  above  them  are  courts  of  first  instance,  one  in 
each  of  the  26  arrondissements,  each  having  three 
judges;  above  these  are  three  courts  of  appeal, 
sitting  in  Brussels,  Ghent,  and  Liege;  and  crowning 
all,  is  the  Court  of  Cassation  or  Supreme  Court 
which  sits  at  Brussels.  This  court  has  a  peculiar 
function,  since  it  never  tries  cases  except  when  a 
minister  is  accused.  It  decides  in  case  of  doubt  in 
what  lower  court  a  case  shall  be  tried,  and  it  reviews 
all  decisions  of  the  lower  courts,  whether  appealed 
or  not,  to  see  if  they  are  in  strict  accord  with  the 
code;  and  if  they  are  not,  the  verdict  is  annulled. 
There  is  only  one  judge  in  this  court,  but  he  has  the 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  73 

assistance  of  a  large  staff  of  reviewers.  The  presi- 
dent of  this  court  is  the  highest  legal  functionary  in 
Belgium.  Criminal  cases  are  tried  in  police  courts, 
correctional  courts,  and  courts  of  assize.  There 
also  are  various  special  courts,  but  a  description  of 
their  organization,  powers,  and  methods  of  procedure 
would  carry  us  beyond  the  scope  set  for  this  outline. 

Local  Government 

Belgium  is  made  up  of  nine  provinces,  which  are 
subdivided  into  26  arrondissements  or  districts,  342 
cantons,  and  2623  communes.  The  provinces  and 
the  communes  are  the  chief  units  for  local  govern- 
mental purposes;  the  arrondissements  are  primarily 
for  electoral  and  judicial  districts,  and  the  cantons 
form  the  areas  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  justices 
of  the  peace.  The  provinces  are  governed  by  a 
popularly  elected  council,  which  in  turn  elects  a 
board  of  six  members,  and  by  a  governor  nominated 
by  the  King.  The  council  represents  the  local 
interests  and  the  governor  forms  the  connecting 
link  between  the  central  and  local  governments. 

Area,  Population,  and  Language 

Belgium  has  an  area  of  11,373  square  miles,  and 
in  1910  had  a  population  of  7,423,784,  or  an  average 
density  of  652  per  square  mile.  The  great  qualities 
of  her  people  might  incline  one  to  forget  the  small 
area   in   winch   her   history   has   been   made.     The 


74  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

significance  of  the  above  figures  may  be  appreciated 
by  comparison  with  an  American  state  of  average 
area:  Ohio  has  an  area  of  41,040  square  miles,  and 
in  1910  had  a  population  of  4,767,121,  or  an  average 
density  of  117  per  square  mile.  Brazil  in  1900  had 
an  average  density  of  population  of  5.4  per  square 
mile. 

The  principal  languages  spoken  by  the  people  of 
Belgium  are  French,  Flemish,  and  to  a  much  less 
extent,  German.  In  1900  the  extent  to  which  these 
languages  were  used  was  as  follows: 

French  only 2,574,805 

Flemish  only      2,822,005 

German  only      28,413 

French  and  Flemish      801,587 

French  and  German 7,238 

The  three  languages      42,889 

The  racial  and  linguistic  distinctions  in  Belgium 
at  once  suggest  comparisons  with  two  other  states 
where  similar  conditions  prevail  —  Austrio-Hungary 
and  Switzerland.  The  government  and  some  of 
the  problems  of  the  Dual  Monarchy  have  already 
been  described.  The  rule  of  the  Hapsburgs  has 
threatened  the  state  with  disruption,  while  in  both 
of  the  small  states  the  people  are  united.  The  chief 
reason  for  this  is  obvious:  in  the  large  state  we  find 
autocracy;   in  the  two  smaller  states,  liberty. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL 

The  History  of  Brazil,  1500-1891 

To  the  average  person  Brazil  is  still  a  country 
without  a  past  and  noted  chiefly  because  it  contains 
the  Amazon,  dense  tropical  forests,  boa  constrictors, 
and  anacondas.  Yet  it  has  an  ancient  and  exceed- 
ingly interesting  history.  For  the  purpose  of  this 
sketch,  however,  the  history  of  Brazil  begins  in 
1500,  when  a  Portuguese  navigator,  Pedro  Alvares 
Cabral,  landed  not  far  from  the  present  city  of 
Bahia  and  took  possession  of  the  country  in  the 
name  of  the  King  of  Portugal.  For  a  time  the 
Crown  paid  little  attention  to  the  new  possession, 
but  about  the  year  1530  the  country  was  divided 
into  hereditary  districts  called  "captaincies"  which 
were  granted  to  nobles  willing  to  undertake  their 
settlement.  The  heads  of  these  captaincies  were 
given  unlimited  power  of  government.  Each  district 
extended  along  fifty  leagues  of  coast,  the  interior 
boundary  being  undefined. 

Settlements  began  under  this  system  in  the  year 
1531 ;  and  by  1548  the  captaincies  had  been  exploited 

75 


76  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

to  such  an  extent  as  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
mother  country  to  the  need  of  a  change  in  govern- 
ment. Each  captaincy  was  independent  of  the 
others,  and  the  difficulties  resulting  from  this  fact, 
together  with  Spanish  rivalry,  internal  disorder,  and 
Indian  attacks  from  without,  led  to  the  appointment 
of  a  Governor-General  in  1549.  "With  him  came 
the  Jesuits,  who  soon  gained  control  over  the 
natives;  and  to  prevent  the  Indians  from  being 
enslaved  by  the  colonists,  the  Jesuits  encouraged 
the  importation  of  African  slaves  who  were  brought 
into  the  country  in  considerable  numbers  during 
the  next  two  centuries. 

Thus  with  the  advent  of  a  foreign  government, 
foreign  colonists,  and  foreign  slaves,  and  the  division 
of  the  country  among  foreign  nobles,  there  was  laid 
the  foundation  of  a  new  Empire  —  and  of  the 
present  Republic  —  so  vast  in  area  and  fertile  in 
resources  that  it  was  destined  in  time  to  become 
one  of  the  leading  powers  of  the  world.  It  is  there- 
fore not  strange  that  this  "Land  of  the  Holy  Cross," 
as  it  was  first  called,  should  attract  the  attention 
and  stimulate  the  rivalry  of  the  leading  powers  of 
Europe,  for  from  1555  to  1640  the  country  suffered 
numerous  invasions  from  the  French,  Dutch,  and 
British,  who  sought  to  gain  a  foothold  on  Brazilian 
soil.  But  it  remained  a  colony  of  Portugal  until 
1815,  when  it  became  an  integral  part  of  the  King- 
dom of  Portugal,  Brazil,  and  Algarves. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL  77 

"When  in  1807  Napoleon  invaded  Spain  and 
Portugal,  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal,  afterwards 
Dom  John  VI,  with  his  family  and  court,  retired  to 
his  American  colony  and  made  it  the  center  of  his 
government.  He  arrived  at  Bahia,  January  21, 
1808,  and  opened  the  ports  of  the  country  to  the 
commerce  of  the  world.  But  on  the  8th  of  March 
following  he  changed  the  seat  of  government  to 
Rio  de  Janeiro,  where  he  remained  until  1821,  when 
he  returned  to  Portugal  and  appointed  his  eldest 
son,  Dom  Pedro,  regent  of  Brazil.  The  change  in 
government  was  not,  however,  due  to  the  voluntary 
abdication  of  Dom  John.  That  monarch  ruled 
Brazil  from  the  standpoint  of  Portuguese  rather 
than  Brazilian  interests,  and  he  was  not  in  sympathy 
with  the  republican  principles  liberated  by  the 
French  Revolution.  The  result  was  the  formation 
of  a  Brazilian  party  favorable  to  independence. 
Dom  Pedro  was  in  sympathy  with  this  movement, 
placed  himself  at  the  head  of  it,  and  on  September  7, 
1822,  he  formally  proclaimed  Brazil  independent 
of  Portugal  and  was  crowned  as  Emperor  of  Brazil 
on  October  12,  1822.  He  was  a  wise  ruler,  and 
under  him  Brazil  prospered,  but  in  1831  he  abdicated 
in  favor  of  his  infant  son,  Dom  Pedro  II,  who  was 
then  but  five  years  of  age.  A  regency  was  appointed 
to  govern  during  his  minority;  although  nine  years 
later  the  legislature  disregarded  the  age  of  the 
Emperor  and  declared  his  majority. 


78  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

On  the  23d  of  July,  1840,  at  fourteen  years  of  age, 
Dom  Pedro  II  began  his  long  reign,  which  continued 
until  1889,  when  the  people  of  Brazil,  feeling  that 
they  had  advanced  far  enough  in  civilization  and 
self-government  to  dispense  with  monarchy,  pro- 
claimed the  present  Republic.  This  revolution  was 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  events  in  the  history  of 
the  world,  for  without  bloodshed  and  with  little 
disturbance,  monarchy  was  overthrown  and  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  established.  Yet  the 
change  was  more  apparent  than  real,  for  Brazil 
is  no  exception  to  the  rule  pointed  out  by  Lord 
Bryce  in  his  American  Commonwealth,  that  "great 
institutions  which  command  the  obedience  and 
respect  of  mankind  are  deeply  rooted  in  the  past." 
After  the  establishment  of  a  provisional  government, 
a  new  Constitution  was  drafted  by  a  commission, 
revised  and  amended  by  an  elected  constituent 
assembly,  and  adopted  February  24,  1891,  providing 
for  "the  Republic  of  the  United  States  of  Brazil." 

The  Constitution 

The  government  of  Brazil  is  closely  modelled 
after  that  of  the  United  States.  The  Constitution 
provides  for  a  "federal  republican  representative 
form  of  government."  The  written  Constitution 
itself,  however,  while  resembling  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  in  many  respects,  both  in  content 
and  arrangement,  is  much  longer  than  the  American 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL  79 

Constitution,  and  deals  with  many  matters  of 
detail  which  in  the  United  States  are  left  to  Con- 
gress. Another  important  difference  is  in  the 
methods  of  amendment.  The  American  Constitu- 
tion, it  will  be  remembered,  is  unique  in  this  respect, 
since  it  cannot  be  amended  by  the  legislature  as 
most  written  constitutions  of  Europe  are,  but  by 
an  authority  outside  of  the  sphere  of  the  national 
government,  that  is,  by  the  people  acting  through 
the  states;  and  it  requires  for  ratification  the  assent 
of  three  fourths  of  the  states.1  An  amendment  to 
the  Brazilian  Constitution,  on  the  other  hand,  may 
be  ratified,  one  year  after  its  proposal,  by  the  simple 
act  of  two-thirds  of  both  houses  of  Congress.  In 
this  very  important  respect  the  Brazilian  Constitu- 
tion resembles  more  nearly  the  written  constitutions 
of  Europe  than  that  of  the  United  States. 

The  State  Government 

But  a  written  Constitution,  whatever  its  aim  or 
purpose  may  be,  is  merely  an  outline  of  government 
and  should  not  be  confused  with  the  actual  govern- 
ment itself,  which  may  or  may  not  conform  in 
practice  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  An 
examination  of  the  Brazilian  system  itself,  however, 
reveals  many  parallels  between  the  government  of 
Brazil  and  that  of  the  United  States.  Like  the 
United  States,  Brazil  has  a  general  government  and 

1  See  Constitution  of  United  States,  Art.  V. 


80  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

state  governments.     There  are  twenty  states,  and 
there  is  one  federal  district. 

Each  state  has  its  own  Constitution,  its  own 
officials,  and  a  very  large  measure  of  independent 
authority.  It  has  exclusive  control  of  its  public 
lands,  mines,  industries,  and  all  local  affairs.  Indeed 
the  doctrine  of  state  rights  has  a  legal  sanction  in 
the  Brazilian  Constitution  carrying  with  it  unusual 
powers.  The  states  may  levy  export  duties  on 
goods  manufactured  within  the  state;  they  may 
also  levy  import  duties  on  goods  shipped  into  the 
state  if  such  goods  are  intended  for  consumption 
within  the  state,  but  the  revenue  collected  from 
imports  must  be  turned  into  the  federal  treasury. 
In  this  respect  the  powers  of  the  Brazilian  states 
are  much  more  extensive  than  those  of  our  own 
states;  but  in  the  authority  of  a  state  over  local 
governments,  the  Brazilian  Constitution  has  an 
important  restriction  placed  upon  the  states. 
Whereas  each  of  our  own  states  has  complete  control 
over  municipalities,  the  Brazilian  Constitution  pro- 
vides that  "the  states  shall  organize  themselves  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  assure  the  autonomy  of  the 
municipalities  in  all  that  relates  to  their  particular 
interests."  Generally  speaking,  however,  the  states 
have  all  powers  not  denied  them  by  the  federal 
Constitution  or  granted  to  the  federal  government 
in  that  Constitution.  As  in  our  own  government 
the  tendency  in  Brazil  is  toward  centralization. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL  81 

The  General  Government 

As  in  the  United  States,  the  general  government 
is  divided  into  three  departments,  the  chief  organs 
of  these  departments  being  a  National  Congress,  a 
President,  and  a  federal  Supreme  Court.  The 
National  Congress  consists  of  two  houses,  the  House 
of  Deputies  and  the  Senate.  The  House  of  Deputies 
is  composed  of  212  representatives  of  the  people 
elected  by  a  direct  popular  vote  from  the  states  and 
federal  district,  according  to  population.  The  num- 
ber of  deputies  is  fixed  by  law,  but  it  shall  not 
exceed  one  for  every  seventy  thousand  inhabitants, 
but  each  state  shall  have  at  least  four  deputies. 
They  are  elected  for  a  term  of  three  years,  the  only 
qualification  being  citizenship  for  more  than  four 
years  and  the  right  to  be  registered  as  an  elector. 

The  Senate  is  composed  of  63  members,  three 
senators  being  elected  from  each  state  and  three 
from  the  federal  district  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
deputies.  In  both  cases  minority  representation  is 
required  by  the  federal  Constitution.  Senators 
must  be  over  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and  citizens 
of  Brazil  for  more  than  six  years.  They  are  elected 
for  a  term  of  nine  years,  one  third  being  renewed 
every  three  years. 

Congress  meets  every  year  on  May  3  and  must 
continue  in  session  four  months;  but  extra  sessions 
may  be  called  by  the  President.     Its  general  powers 


82  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

in  the  matter  of  legislation,  and  the  powers  of  each 
house  separately,  are  in  general  similar  to  those 
of  the  American  Congress,  the  chief  difference  be- 
tween the  two  bodies  being  that  in  the  Brazilian 
Congress  the  lower  house  is  elected  for  three  years 
and  the  upper  for  nine  years,  whereas  in  America 
they  are  elected  for  two  and  six  years  respectively. 
In  addition  to  the  special  right  of  impeachment  and 
of  originating  money  bills,  exercised  by  the  Ameri- 
can House  of  Representatives,  the  Brazilian  House 
of  Deputies  has  the  exclusive  right  to  initiate  pro- 
posals for  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  for  laws 
fixing  the  strength  of  land  and  naval  forces,  and  of 
proposals  for  discussing  recommendations  made  by 
the  executive. 

The  executive  power  is  vested  in  the  President, 
who,  together  with  the  Vice-President,  is  elected  by 
a  direct  popular  vote  for  four  years;  but  he  cannot 
be  reelected  for  the  succeeding  term.  He  must  be 
a  native  of  Brazil,  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and  in 
the  enjoyment  of  political  rights.  If  a  vacancy  in 
the  presidency  or  vice-presidency  occurs  before  two 
years  of  the  term  have  expired,  a  new  election  is 
held.  Otherwise  the  succession  to  the  presidency 
passes  from  the  President  to  Vice  President,  the 
Vice  President  of  the  Senate,  the  President  of  the 
House  of  Deputies,  and  the  President  of  the  federal 
Supreme  Court,  in  the  order  named. 

The  powers  of  the  President  are  similar  to  those 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL  83 

of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  He  appoints 
the  members  of  his  Cabinet,  seven  in  number,  the 
diplomatic  corps,  consular  agents,  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  other  civil  and  military  officials, 
with  the  approval  of  the  Senate. 

The  relations  of  the  Cabinet  to  the  President  and 
to  Congress  are  also  similar  to  those  of  the  United 
States.  The  theory  of  separation  of  powers  is 
prescribed  by  the  Constitution  and  carried  into 
practice.  Like  the  United  States,  Brazil  does  not 
have  a  cabinet  or  party  government  like  that  of 
England,  France,  and  Italy.  In  fact,  parties  in 
Brazil  do  not  center  around  political  issues  as  in 
the  other  states  which  we  have  described,  but 
rather  around  leaders.  At  present,  the  nearest 
approach  to  the  party  system  found  in  the  states 
having  party  government  is  in  the  contest  between 
those  who  favor  greater  central  control  and  the 
champions  of  state  rights. 

The  judicial  power  is  vested  in  the  federal  Supreme 
Court,  which  sits  at  the  capital  of  the  republic, 
and  in  as  many  inferior  courts  as  Congress  may 
create.  The  Supreme  Court  is  composed  of  fifteen 
justices  appointed  by  the  President,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate;  and  there  is  at  present  one 
federal  judge  in  each  state.  The  latter  are  also 
appointed  by  the  President,  but  upon  recommenda- 
tion of  the  Supreme  Court.  All  federal  judges  hold 
office  for  life;   but  members  of  the  Supreme  Court 


84  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

may  be  removed  on  impeachment  tried  by  the 
Senate;  the  inferior  federal  judges  may  be  removed 
only  by  a  judicial  sentence  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
An  important  provision  in  the  Constitution  en- 
courages arbitration  by  providing  that  Congress 
may  "authorize  the  government  to  declare  war, 
when  arbitration  has  failed  or  cannot  take  place." 

Population  and  Resources 

Brazil  is  the  largest  of  the  South  American  coun- 
tries, and  the  second  largest  of  the  American  re- 
publics. It  has  an  area  of  3,290,000  square  miles 
and  a  population  of  27,000,000,  largely  of  Portuguese 
descent,  and  Portuguese  is  the  official  and  popular 
language.  The  native  aboriginal  people  have  left 
little  impress  upon  the  country  and  are  now  found 
only  in  the  immense  interior.  Their  number  is 
estimated  at  about  500,000.  In  the  northern  areas 
there  is  an  intermixture  of  blood  with  the  Africans, 
imported  in  the  early  history  of  Brazil  to  form  the 
working  population.  In  the  southern  states  there 
are  about  400,000  Germans,  and  in  the  central 
states  1,500,000  Italians.  The  number  of  Spanish 
descent  is  estimated  at  400,000.  These  different 
races  make  up  the  population  of  to-day.  The 
capital,  Rio  de  Janeiro,  has  a  population  of 
1,500,000. 

Brazil  has  a  coast  line  of  over  5000  miles  with 
many    fine    harbors,    and    an    extensive    commerce 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BRAZIL  85 

with  all  the  principal  countries  of  the  world.  The 
exports  in  1916  were  $257,000,000,  and  the  imports, 
$195,000,000.  The  chief  exports  are  coffee,  rubber, 
herva  matte,  hides,  cacao,  tobacco,  cotton,  and 
sugar;  the  chief  imports  are  food  products,  machin- 
ery, steel  and  iron,  textiles,  woods,  pelts,  and  skins. 
Brazil  was  the  first  American  colony  to  make 
agriculture  the  chief  aim  of  colonization,  and  that 
industry  still  holds  first  place  in  the  industries  of 
the  republic.  The  first  railroad  was  built  in  1854; 
and  in  1914  there  were  over  14,000  miles  in  operation. 
About  one-fourth  of  the  railways  are  owned  by  the 
states,  one-seventh  by  the  federal  government,  and 
one-third  are  owned  by  the  federal  government  and 
leased.  The  rest  are  concessions  to  private  concerns 
granted  by  the  federal  government.  Steamship 
lines  connect  the  principal  ports  of  Brazil  with  those 
of  the  United  States  and  Europe.  Fifty  trans- 
Atlantic  lines  are  registered  as  touching  Brazilian 
ports. 

The  peace  strength  of  the  regular  army  is  about 
32,000  men.  The  war  strength  exceeds  300,000 
men.  The  navy  consists  of  51  vessels  with  a 
complement  of  13,000  men. 

Public  education  is  secular,  but  there  are  many 
private  schools.  Education  is  supported  by  the 
federal  and  state  governments  and  there  are  also 
municipal  schools.  Some  states  have  compulsory 
education.     The  church  is  entirely   divorced  from 


86  DEMOCRACY  vs.  AUTOCRACY 

the  state.  With  its  splendid  history,  its  democratic 
government,  its  wealth  of  resources,  its  free  system 
of  public  schools,  and  its  liberty-loving  and  progres- 
sive people,  Brazil,  already  a  great  world  power, 
will  indeed  be  a  potent  factor  in  making  and  keeping 
the  world  safe  for  democracy. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Information  concerning  modern  foreign  governments  may  be  gained 
from  various  sources:  (1)  modern  histories,  (2)  collections  of  funda- 
mental laws  and  constitutions,  (3)  standard  textbooks  on  government, 
(4)  general  and  special  cyclopedias,  (5)  year-books  or  annuals  giving 
the  latest  information  and  (6)  periodicals.  The  following  list  covers 
these  six  sources  and  is  designed  to  meet  the  ordinary  reference  require- 
ments of  the  student  unacquainted  with  foreign  languages. 

Histories 

Cambridge   Modern   History,   vol.   xi,   The   Growth   of   Nationalities. 
N.  Y.     Macmillan  Co.     1909. 

Hayes,  C.  J.  H.     A  Political  and  Social  History  of  Modern  Europe. 
2  vols.     N.  Y.     Macmillan  Co.     1916. 

Hazen,  C.  D.     Europe  Since  1815.     N.  Y.     Holt.     1910. 

Robinson  and  Beard,  The  Development  of  Modern  Europe,    2  vols. 
Boston.     Ginn  &  Co.     1907-8. 

Cooper,    C.   S.     The    Brazilians   and   Their    Country.     N.  Y.     F.  A. 
Stokes.     1917. 

Essen,  L.  Van  der.     A  Short  History  of  Belgium.     Chicago.     University 
of  Chicago  Press.     1916. 

Ogg,  F.  A.     Social  Progress  in  Contemporary  Europe.     N.  Y.     Mac- 
millan Co.     1917. 

Documents 

Dodd,    W.    F.     Modern    Constitutions.    2    vols.     Chicago.     Chicago 
University  Press.     1909. 

"A  collection  of  fundamental  laws  of  twenty-two  of  the  most  important  countries  of 
the  world,  with  historical  and  bibliographical  notes." 

Textbooks  and  Descriptions  of  Governments 

Burgess,  J.  W.     Political  Science  and  Comparative  Constitutional  Law. 
2  vols.     Boston.     Ginn  &  Co.     1890-91. 

87 


88  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Lowell,  A.  L.  Governments  and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe.  2  vols. 
Boston.     Houghton  Mifflin  Co.     1900. 

Lowell,  A.  L.  The  Government  of  England.  New  edition,  2  vols. 
N.  Y.     Macmillan  Co.     1912. 

Macy  and  Gannaway.  Comparative  Free  Government.  N.  Y.  Mac- 
millan Co.     1915. 

Ogg,  F.  A.      Governments  of  Europe.     N.  Y.     Macmillan  Co.     1913. 

Wilson,  Woodrow.     The  State.     N.  Y.     D.  C.  Heath  &  Co.     1898. 

Beard,  C.  A.  American  Government  and  Politics.  N.  Y.  Macmillan 
Co.     1916. 

Bryce,  James.  South  America  —  Observations  and  Impressions.  N.  Y. 
Macmillan  Co.     1912. 

Bryce,  James.  American  Commonwealth.  2  vols.  N.  Y.  Mac- 
millan Co.     1910. 

Encyclopedias 

Encyclopedia  Britannica,  The  New  International,  Cyclopedia  of  Ameri- 
can Government  (primarily  for  American  government). 

Annuals 

The  (English)  Statesman's  Year-Book,  Whitaker's  Almanack,  The  New 
Hazell  Annual  and  Almanack,  Almanack  de  Gotha:  annuaire  genea- 
logique,  diplomatique,  et  statistique  and  the  Brazilian  Year-Book  are 
typical  examples  of  this  source  of  information.  Similar  annuals  are 
published  for  nearly  all  foreign  countries  and  are  invaluable  for  the 
latest  information  upon  government,  parties,  elections,  ministries, 
population,  industries,  and  social  statistics.  The  two  leading  Ameri- 
can annuals  are  The  New  International  Year-Book,  and  The  American 
Year-Book. 

Periodicals 

Among  the  periodicals  the  following  combination  is  suggested  as 
covering  an  adequate  range  of  current  political  information  and  at  the 
same  time  stimulating  independent  and  critical  thought.  American: 
The  Nation,  a  weekly  accompanied  with  a  valuable  bi-weekly  section 
on  International  Relations;  The  New  Republic;  The  New  York  Times 
Current  History,  a  monthly  magazine;  The  American  Review  of  Reviews; 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  89 

The  American  Journal  of  International  Law;  and  the  American  Political 
Science  Review.  English:  The  Nation,  The  Spectator,  The  New  Statesman, 
and  the  Saturday  Review  are  among  the  leading  weeklies,  while  among 
the  monthlies  and  quarterlies  the  Contemporary  Review,  Nineteenth 
Century,  Edinburgh  Review,  Quarterly  Review,  and  Fortnightly  Review 
are  all  very  excellent.  No  list  of  periodicals,  however  brief,  should 
omit  the  famous  French  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes. 


INDEX 

Act  of  Settlement  1701,  9. 

Alsace-Lorraine,  33. 

American  Constitution,  7,  8. 

American  government,  7. 

Ausgleich,  Austro-Hungarian,  45. 

Austria,  government  of,  50-56;   history  of,  37-41. 

Austrian  Empire,  constitution  of,  50;  Emperor,  power  of,  51;  House  of 

Representatives,  53;    local  government,  55-56;    ministers,  51-52; 

parliamentary    system,    52;     parties    in,    54;     Reichsrat,    52-53; 

states  in,  45. 
Austria-Hungary,  36-64;    boundary,  60;    common   government,  47-49; 

delegations,  48;    population,  60. 
Autocracy,  dangers  of,  2. 

Babenberg,  Leopold  of,  38. 

Baden,  33. 

Bavaria,  33. 

Belgium,  area,  73;  constitution  of,  68;  executive  power,  69-70;  Ger- 
man occupation  of,  67;  government  of,  65-74;  history  of,  65-67; 
House  of  Representatives,  68,  69;  justice,  72-73;  language,  74; 
local  government,  73;  parties  in,  71;  population,  73;  Senate,  com- 
position of  69;    suffrage,  69. 

Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  37,  50. 

Brazil,  army,  85;  Cabinet,  83;  Congress,  81;  Constitution,  78-79; 
education,  85;  executive  power,  82;  exports,  85;  general  govern- 
ment of,  81-83;  history  of,  75-78;  imports,  85;  judicial  power, 
83;  navy,  85;  population,  84;  resources,  84;  Senate,  81;  state 
governments,  79-80. 

Cabinet,   American,   10;    Austrian,  52;     Austro-Hungarian,  48;     Eng- 
lish, 10;    French,  17;    German,  32;    Italian,  22,  23. 
Captaincies  in  Brazil,  75. 

91 


92  INDEX 

Cavour,  Count,  20. 

Charles  V,  Emperor,  38. 

Compromise,  Austro-Hungarian,  45. 

Confederation,  North  German,  29;  Rhine,  41. 

Congress  of  Vienna,  28. 

Croatia,  58. 

Czecho-Slovaks,  national  council,  62;  recognition  of,  63. 

Czechs,  location  of,  63. 

Dalmatia,  58. 
Deak,  Francis,  44. 
Democracy,  defined,  1-3. 

Emanuel,  Victor,  20. 

English  government,  8-14;  Cabinet,  10;  chief  organs  of  government, 
9-10;  constitution  compared  with  American,  7,  8;  growth  of 
constitution  8-9;  sources  of,  8-9;  King,  powers  of,  10;  House  of 
Commons,  11,  12;  House  of  Lords,  10;  Parliament  Act  of  1911,  11; 
political  parties,  12,  13;  Prime  Minister,  13;  Representation  of 
People  Act  1918,  12;   suffrage,  11,  12;   War  Cabinet,  14. 

Flemish,  74. 

French  government,  15-18;  Cabinet,  17;  Chamber  of  Deputies,  18; 
Constitution  of,  15;  departments,  18;  ministry,  17;  National 
Assembly,  15;  organs  of  government,  15;  parties,  19;  President  of 
the  Republic,  16,  17;  Senate,  17-18. 

Franco-Prussian  War,  29. 

Functions  of  government,  4. 

German  empire,  26-35;  based  on  inequality,  29-30;  Bundesrat,  30, 
33;  Chancellor,  32;  chief  organs  of  government,  31;  defects  of 
government,  28;  emperor,  powers  of,  32;  Foreign  minister  quoted, 
27,  28;  imperial  constitution  of,  29;  King  of  Prussia,  31;  Reichs- 
tag, 34;  name  of,  29;  North  German  Confederation,  29;  Presi- 
dent Wilson  quoted  on,  26;  Prussian  delegation,  34;  responsibility 
in,  35. 

Golden  Bull  of  1222,  42. 


INDEX  93 

Government,  source  of  power  in,  2;  principles  determining  character  of, 
4-6;  relation  of  central  to  local,  5. 

Habeas  Corpus  Act  1679,  9. 

Hamburg,  33. 

Hapsburg,  House  of,  38. 

Hesse,  33. 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  41. 

Hungary,  Constitution  of,  57;  government  of,  56-58;  history  of,  41-45; 
legislative  power,  57;  local  government  of,  58;  provincial  govern- 
ment of,  58;   states  in,  45;  Table  of  Magnates,  57. 

Ireland,  union  with  England,  9. 

Italy,  20-25;  Chamber  of  Deputies,  24,  25;  chief  organs  of  govern- 
mental; history  of,  20-21 ;  King,  powers  of,  21-22,  24;  ministry, 
21,  22,  23;  parliamentary  system,  25;  Parliament,  composition  of, 
24;   parties,  22-23;   Senate,  24;   Statuto,  21;   suffrage,  25. 

Karlowitz,  peace  of,  39. 
Kossuth,  Louis,  44. 

Leopold  of  Babenberg,  38. 
Liibeck,  33. 

Magna  Carta,  9. 

Magyars,  37,  41. 

Maria  Theresa,  39. 

Masaryk,  Thomas  G.,  62,  64. 

Maximilian  I,  38. 

Mecklenberg-Schwerin,  33. 

Metternich,  Prince,  39-40,  44. 

Moravians,  37. 

Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1835,  9. 

Napoleon,  20. 

Nationality,  principle  of,  43. 

North  Ministry,  fall  of,  27. 


94  INDEX 

Ottokar,  Duke,  38. 
Ottoman  Turks,  36-37. 

Parliament  Act  of  1911,  11. 
Petition  of  Right,  English,  9. 
Pragmatic  Sanction,  50. 
Prussia,  position  of  in  Empire,  30. 

Races  in  Austria-Hungary,  59. 
Reform  Acts,  English,  9. 
Representation  of  the  People  Act  1918,  9. 
Reichstag,  German,  34. 

Sardinia,  Kingdom  of,  21. 

Savoy,  House  of,  20. 

Saxony,  33. 

Scotland,  union  with  England,  9. 

Self-determination,  59,  64. 

Slavonia,  58. 

Statesman's  Year-Book,  14. 

Suleiman  II,  37. 

Titles  of  Austrian  rulers,  40-41. 

Wilson,  President,  on  war  aims,  1. 
Wurttemberg,  33. 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


JUN     2  193* 

JANib  1946 

FEB  4     1949 

■m     ^; 
m  4190 

Pfrl'  1951 

- 


xr  u 


\S. 


\flfc 


ID.U*       J^^ 


1 '  f967 


tt-Wi 


;*:>, 


^Ys 


/O 


^ 


Form  L-9-15m-7,'32 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

II  liHlllllll  IHIIIIIIIIIIli    I! 


AA    000  566  044    4 


iiiiiiiiiiiniUMIi 


